Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRITS

For Harrogate, in the room of Christopher York, esquire (Manor of Northstead).

For Arundel and Shoreham, in the room of William Nicolson Cuthbert, esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is yet in a position to make a full statement on the present position of the fisheries dispute between the British and Icelandic Governments.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave the hon. and learned Gentleman on 27th January.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is it not time that these differences were settled by an amicable round-table conference, and that the two nations should stop snarling, to the detriment of the fishermen and consumers, at each other?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The Government have made it plain that we would be willing to enter into discussions, but the Icelandic Government have so far been unwilling to discuss the fishery limits which they sought to impose.

Mr. Hoy: Has the hon. Gentleman given consideration to the suggestion that the signatories to the North Sea Fisheries Convention should be called together to discuss this problem?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I do not think that this would be a suitable problem for them to discuss. It is a bilateral problem between Iceland and the United Kingdom.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Would my hon. Friend not agree that this problem is mainly a dispute between commercial interests, and that therefore it rests more with them than with the Governments concerned?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: There is quite a lot in what my hon. Friend says.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN

British Citizens (Visa Refusal)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the Spanish Government, in January, 1954, refused visas to Mr. Percy Knight, National Organiser of the National Union of Seamen and a distinguished British trade unionist, and Mr. Saul Rose, the Secretary of the Labour Party's International Department, both British citizens of repute; if he will inquire from the Spanish Government why these visas were so refused; and make a statement on the subject to this House.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir," and to the second part is "No, Sir." By international practice, no sovereign State is required to give a reason for a refusal to allow entry into its territory by citizens of another country. There are, therefore, no grounds for making a statement to the House.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any reciprocity in this matter? If so, how does it work? Is the discrimination against Socialists only, or does it apply to other Britons as well?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am not quite sure what the hon. and learned Gentleman means by reciprocity, but, as far as I am aware, there is no question of reciprocity here. It is merely a matter of individual cases.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that he has not even inquired through our mission about the reason these visas were refused? Will he not do so?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: There is no ground on which Her Majesty's Ambassador could be asked to inquire why these visas were refused.

American Tanks (Supply)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make representations to the United States Government about the undesirability of American tanks being supplied to Spain until both British, French and other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation requirements have been fully met.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): No, Sir. We know that the United States Government have fully in mind the requirements of their North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies.

Mr. Fletcher: I am very grateful to the Minister of State for having answered the Question. Is not there something particularly obnoxious and perverse in the fact that America is supplying tanks to Spain at a time when France and other N.A.T.O. countries are still anxious to have these supplies? Is not this a matter on which representations ought to be made by Her Majesty's Government to the United States?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think so. The supplies of armaments to these other countries have had a considerable time to develop. Within the terms of the Treaty between the United States and Spain, there are very definite limitations on the use to which these arms are put.

Mr. Teeling: Is it not also true that a question of geography is involved here? Is it not reasonable that Spain should also have some form of protection in case of war?

Mr. Lloyd: I quite agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Minister say against whom it is thought that General Franco will require these tanks? Is it against us in Gibraltar, against the Spanish people or against the French in Morocco?

Mr. Lloyd: It is absolutely clear that the assistance which is given in this way could not be used for the kind of purpose to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

British Vessel (Seizure)

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British m.v. "Sevro,"which was seized by the Spanish authorities on 26th January last and taken to Algeciras, has now been released; and if he will make a further statement on the circumstances of this case.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: This ship remains in the custody of the Spanish authorities on a charge of smuggling. I understand that the verdict of the provincial court at Cadiz will be given on 25th February. We must await the verdict. Meanwhile, I should inform the House that Her Majesty's Vice-Consul at Cadiz was not permitted to attend the trial. Her Majesty's Ambassador has been instructed to raise the matter, since the Vice-Consul had previously been given permission to attend.

Mr. Braine: While I welcome the news that a protest has been sent about the discourteous treatment of our Vice-Consul, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that the Spaniards justified their seizure of the vessel in the first instance on the ground that they can take in tow any ship of 100 tons or less in the Straits? As in this case this action constitutes an interference with HerMajesty's mails and a threat to British ships based on Gibraltar, can my hon. Friend say whether the Government will make the strongest possible representations to Madrid at the appropriate time?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I have taken note of what my hon. Friend says, but we must await the final decision about where the ship was.

Mr. Beswick: Can the Minister assure us that the Vice-Consul was not kept away from performing his lawful duties by American tanks?

Mr. Ernest Davies: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the reply which he has had to give in this case, and the reply which he gave to an earlier Question, show the mistaken policy which is being followed towards Franco at present? As long as we allow Franco to take the attitude which he is now taking towards British ships, British subjects, the Protestant Church and the rest, he cannot possibly be accepted into the comity of nations in Europe.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I do not for one moment accept what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

U.K. Visa Applications (Questionnaire)

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the questions required to be answered by West German nationals wishing to obtain visas for visiting the United Kingdom; and why all of these questions are still necessary.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I assume the hon. Member is referring to the questionnaire which is sent to Germans wishing to apply for a visa by letter. The questionnaire is now being revised so as to eliminate all but essential questions.

Mr. Hynd: Since visas for British people visiting Germany have been completely abolished, is the Minister aware that this change in the questionnaire will be appreciated? Can he give any information about when the new questionnaire is likely to be available?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: We hope it will be completed very shortly.

Mr. Dugdale: Are these questions any more tiresome than those directed to British subjects desiring to enter the United States of America?

Post-war Assistance (Agreement)

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any agreement has been readied with the Western German Government, having regard to the recent development of German external trade, for the repayment of the £80 million per annum incurred by the United Kingdom for the provision of food and raw materials to the British Zone during the earlier years of the occupation.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Yes, Sir. An agreement was reached on 27th February, 1953, at the same time as the agreement on German external debts.

Mr. Hynd: Can the Minister circulate the provisions of that agreement? Is he aware that, in view of the concern expressed some time ago at the prospect of ever getting this money back, the agree-

ment will be received with great satisfaction? Will he give it the maximum publicity?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The agreement has been issued as White Paper No. 8782. It shows that of Her Majesty's Government's claims, amounting to about £200 million, the Federal Government will pay £150 million by 20 annual instalments. The first payment was due on 1st August, 1953, and has been made.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not this a form of reparations? Is it not a fact that behind the façade of prosperity in Germany there are vast numbers of German workers underfed and underpaid? At a time when the Soviet Government are abolishing reparations, is it not a bad thing for the Western Powers to be insisting on them?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: That is another question.

Neutralisation (French Government's Views)

Mr. Parkin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent communications he has had from the French Government on the subject of a neutralised Germany.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I know of no formal communication from the French Government on this subject. But we are fully aware of their views, which are the same as our own.

Mr. Parkin: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman nevertheless bear in mind that in vast sections of French public opinion of all political shades there is alarm and despair at the prospect of the re-emerging of an armed Germany, and will he further bear in mind that those who, in France and other countries which have suffered occupation, support the re-armament of Germany, tend to be identified in the public mind with those who collaborated with the Nazis during the occupation, and that this has a demoralising effect which greatly weakens our allies?

Mr. Lloyd: The question asked about the position of the French Government. That position is the same as our own. There are many people on both sides of


this House who realise the danger which there would be to the peace of Europe in the neutralisation of Germany.

Mr. de Freitas: Will the Minister also remember that, whether we or the French like it or not, both Government and Opposition parties in Germany have gone on record as being against a neutralised Germany?

Mr. Lloyd: That is true.

Foreign Ministers' Conference, Berlin

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the Berlin Conference.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: I appreciate that the Minister may not be in a position to make a statement today, but if a Question were put down for next week would the Minister then be prepared to make a statement?

Mr. Lloyd: This is obviously a matter of very great importance to the House, and I think it is one which had better be discussed through the usual channels.

Armed Forces

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not support or assist in any way a rearmed Germany, where these any way a re-armed Germany, where these armed forces contain Nazis or former Nazis.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Our Treaty with the countries belonging to the European Defence Community will oblige us to give assistance in the event of an armed attack upon any of them. The best safeguard against a revival of Nazi or militaristic principles in Germany is the European Defence Community in which a German defence contribution will be integrated. It would be unrealistic to require that every soldier in the German contribution should be free from all past Nazi connections, and none of the four occupying Powers has applied this principle in connection with other branches of the public service.

Mr. Lewis: That surely means that a Nazi can join the German Army. Am I

to assume that if a person had Nazi connections in the past or has them at the present time, he would, in fact, be permitted to join the German Army, and that Her Majesty's Government would not object in any way?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that something would depend upon rank. It is laid down in the arrangements for the E.D.C. Treaty that senior appointments for the E.D.C. forces would be a matter for the Community itself.

Brigadier Medlicott: Surely we should remember that it was less than nine years ago that we were fighting for our lives against the Nazis, and that we must neglect no means of ensuring that the people who believe in this detestable doctrine shall never again regain power and control?

Mr. Lloyd: I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, but we also have to see that we do not create conditions in which Nazism arises again.

Mr. Warbey: There is a Question on the Order Paper today in my name addressed to the Foreign Secretary and it has been put down in the wrong place. It is for Written answer but it should have been for Oral answer.
[To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the right of an all-German Government, before and after the conclusion of a peace treaty enabling them to defend themselves, to form and maintain national armed forces without limit as to size, type or armament, and the right to import or to manufacture any type of military weapon.]
I tabled it for Oral answer on Monday, but as I already had three Questions down for Oral answer it was put down for Written answer. During Question time on Monday I went to the Table and asked that it be deferred until today for Oral answer. In these circumstances, may I have an Oral answer now?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot possibly allow that now. I do not know what happened.

Mr. Warbey: In view of the fact that there has been some misunderstanding or mistake, may I appeal to the Minister to


answer the Question, which he can do by your leave, Mr. Speaker, and by leave of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I could not allow that. I must inquire into the facts.

Reunification Proposals (Discussions)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent he has discussed his proposals for a peace treaty with Germany with the leaders of the political parties in Western Germany.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I presume the hon. Gentleman is referring to the comprehensive proposals which my right hon.Friend put forward at the Berlin Conference on 29th January for the reunification of Germany by means of free elections and the constitution of an all-German Government leading up to the conclusion of a peace treaty. During the last three weeks, my righthon. Friend has had frequent occasion to meet representatives of the German Federal Government, of the various German political parties, including the Opposition, as well as many prominent personalities in West Berlin. The above proposals were fully discussed on these occasions and have been very widely welcomed by Germans of all parties represented in the Bundestag.

Mr. Swingler: Has the Minister of State read recent reports in reputable newspapers, like the "Manchester Guardian," showing that there is a powerful body of West German opinion which, while favouring genuine free elections, is opposed to Germany entering into military alliances? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm whether these reports are correct, and has he taken them into account in deciding on this policy.

Mr. Lloyd: The Question related to the extent to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had discussed the proposals with leaders of the political parties of West Germany, and I sought to answer that Question. As to the extent of the view to which the hon. Member refers, I do not know how extensive it is. This is not a matter to be dealt with by Question and answer. There will be an opportunity to debate it in the near future.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CHRISTIANS, COLOMBIA (PERSECUTION)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what protests have been made under the Anglo-Colombian Treaty of Friendship to the Government of Colombia about the widespread persecution of British Protestant Christians in that country.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Her Majesty's Government have made no protest to the Colombian Government under the Anglo-Colombian Treaty as there has been no breach of that Treaty.

Mr. Fletcher: Why not? Is the Minister not aware that during recent years therehave been 700 cases of religious persecution in Colombia, that 52 Protestants have been killed, 42 Protestant churches destroyed by fire and 110 Protestant primary schools closed? Are not these grounds for the most vigorous representations under the Treaty?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: As far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, Article 15 of the Anglo-Colombian Treaty assures British subjects freedom of conscience and freedom of private worship. It does not confer upon British Protestants the right to seek converts in Colombia. As far as I am aware, all these attacks have not been on British subjects.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Has not the Joint Under-Secretary of State made any inquiries to find out whether these allegations are true? Can he confirm or deny the truth of the allegations?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I do not think they are concerned with the Anglo-Colombian Treaty of Friendship, to which this Question refers.

Captain Orr: Has not my hon. Friend had extensive communications and documentation on this subject from my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Sir D. Savory)? In view of the intolerable persecution which is taking place, will he not make it clear to the Colombian Government that this form of persecution is viewed with acute disfavour by Her Majesty's Government and may seriously impair relations?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: As I have informed the House, there are no grounds under the Treaty for taking action.

Mr. Paget: Is Colombia a party to the Declaration of Human Rights? Cannot this matter be raised at theUnited Nations? Will Her Majesty's Government take steps to do that?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I suggest that that would be a proper place for this question.

Mr. Teeling: While I fully appreciate that we should do everything possible to stop persecution in every part of the world and of any form of religion, is it not quite possible that much of this so-called persecution is entirely due to the people mentioned taking part in some political isues in that country? If not, why has not the Archbishop of Canterbury made any public protest?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister is not responsible for the Archbishop of Canterbury. The whole question is hypothetical.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

Disarmament Commission

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals have been made by Her Majesty's Government for the carrying out of the Resolution on the work of the United Nations Disarmament Commission adopted by the General Assembly on 7th December, 1953.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the importance of following up the Assembly's Resolution. We hope that the Disarmament Commission may be in a position to start meeting again shortly. Developments in this field must, however, depend to some extent on what results from the procedural discussions at Berlin between Mr. Dulles and M. Molotov on President Eisenhower's proposals with regard to atomic energy.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Would it not be possible for Her Majesty's Government to propose that the Commission should at last start on its work of drafting a treaty on the basis of the proposals which we put forward two years ago?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that the most promising development in this field recently has been President Eisenhower's proposals. There are procedural discussions as to how that development can be handled. When that has been decided, I think we shall be in a position to see what useful work the Disarmament Commission can do.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that President Eisenhower's proposals relate to pacific uses of atomic energy but that the Commission is designed to deal with weapons of every kind, including atomic weapons, conventional weapons and forces?

Mr. Lloyd: I think it has been publicly stated that it is clear that the Soviet Union are inclined to group President Eisenhower's proposals with their own suggestions on atomic disarmament. That is why there is a link between those two matters. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the question of the Disarmament Commission proceeding with a draft treaty is one which is frequently before us, and for which there is a great deal to be said.

Korean Situation (Meeting)

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement about the proposal made by the Government of India that the General Assembly of the United Nations should meet on 9th February.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 3rd February.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If it should happen that no progress towards a political conference on Korea can be made as a result of the Berlin Conference, will Her Majesty's Government support the proposal of Canada that the Assembly should meet again in March?

Mr. Lloyd: There is no doubt that if nothing comes from Berlin, that proposal will have to be very carefully considered.

Relief for Arab Refugees (U.K. Contribution)

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the total sum contributed by the United Kingdom to the United Nations Relief


and Works Agency for Arab refugees to the nearest convenient date; and whether it is intended to increase the contribution owing to the extension of the original three-year programme by a further period of two years.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The total sum contributed up to 30th June, 1953, was £12 million. Of this amount, £3½ million is in suspense, earmarked for future resettlement projects.
The three-year programme ending on 30th June, 1954, has been extended by one year, and not two as stated by my hon. Friend. The contribution of Her Majesty's Government in respect of this further year will be decided in the light of the review of the Agency's programme which is to be undertaken by the General Assembly in the autumn of 1954.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Would it be correct to say that the contribution made by Her Majesty's Government compares very favourably with that made by any other country, and that until the Arab States themselves accept the principle of settlement of Arab refugees, whatever is done by the United Nations organisation can only be in the form of a temporary palliative of this appalling problem?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I fully agree with what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Philips Price: Can the Minister say whether any part of the money already spent has gone towards resettlement of the Arab refugees?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I cannot say that definitely, but I think that, if so, it will have been a very small part.

Mr. Younger: Since it appears to me to be the settled policy of the Arab Governments at the present time not to allow a settlement of this problem, is the hon. Gentleman aware of the need in the near future to find some way of giving them some inducement to change their mind, because at present there is a widespread impression that they are making a good thing out of the influx of all these United Nations funds and are in no hurry to settle the problem?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The point of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks is, of course, under constant consideration.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would the Minister say whether there is the remotest likelihood of getting this matter cleared up in the extended period, and if there is not, as I suspect there is not, will Her Majesty's Government take direct action through the United Nations or by any other means open to them to try to solve the political deadlock which must be solved before this social problem can be eased?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: As to the likelihood of a settlement, one cannot say here and now what the chances are. Every endeavour will be made by Her Majesty's Government to reach a settlement of these problems.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT

British Arms Supply (Suspension)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date the supply of arms to Egypt was suspended; how this was made public; and what reasons and conditions were given to the Egyptian Government.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The supply of arms to Egypt was suspended when the Egyptian Government passed legislation purporting to abrogate the 1936 Treaty. An announcement was published in the Board of Trade Journal of 27th October, 1951. The reasons for this action were self-evident and no conditions were attached to it. Since the announcement, no arms have been supplied to Egypt except four Meteor aircraft early last year.

Mr. Jeger: Is the Minister prepared to take exactly the same action with regard to Spain?

Mr. Lloyd: That is an entirely different matter.

Incidents, Suez Canal Zone

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether the Egyptian Government have yet investigated, or agreed to investigate, all outrages against British persons and property in the Suez Canal Zone which have occurred since 1st January, 1953; what has been the result of such investigations; what punishment the culprits have received; and what


apologies and reparations have been offered;
(2) what, to the last convenient date since 1st January, 1953, is the total number of outrages against British persons and property in the Suez Canal Zone; how many British subjects have been injured in them; and how many have died of their wounds.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The total number of such incidents in the period from 1st January, 1953, to 11th February, 1954, is 296; the majority of these were thefts or cable-cutting. With regard to attacks on British subjects, 14 British subjects were killed or died of wounds, and 31 were injured.
The main channel of communication regarding details of incidents is the direct one between the British military authorities and the Egyptian authorities in the Canal Zone, for which purpose special liaison officers are maintained on both sides. The practice of the Egyptian authorities is to open formal investigations into incidents reported to them. The results of these investigations have been very disappointing.
In some minor cases, such as burglaries, the police have succeeded in recovering some of the stolen property. In serious cases, no worth-while results have been achieved by the Egyptian police investigations; no formal apologies or reparations have been offered by the Egyptian Government.

Mr. Maitland: Would my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that this represents the worsening of an already deplorable situation. Does not the tally grow darker, and how much longer must the British public endure the rôle of submission and tread the path of humiliation?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that a certain amount of patience has to be shown in attempting to achieve an agreement on honourable terms, but I have never sought to conceal from the House that this typeof incident does make it much more difficult to reach an honourable agreement.

Mr. Maitland: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not realise that a policy of firmness designed to re-establish the good name and respect of our country will meet with overwhelming support of the people of Great Britain?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not agree for one moment that a policy of agreeing to the signing of an agreement on honourable terms is not a policy of firmness.

Sir R. Acland: Does not the Minister think that the best way to end this very regrettable state of affairs is to make the quickest possible agreement on such terms as can reasonably be had, and to call in the good offices of the Opposition in order to handle the little group of rebels who are trying to sabotage these negotiations?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that we can make an agreement on any terms. The terms have to be honourable terms, and this type of incident does make that objective more difficult.

Captain Waterhouse: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in the years immediately following the first war and immediately preceding the murder of the Sirdar, Sir Lee Stack, there were 29 murders and attempted murders in Egypt, and that as a result of the firm policy which started from that time onwards, tranquillity was restored and within a few years an eminently satisfactory agreement was signed?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of the facts to which my right hon. and gallant Friend refers.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister of State continue his efforts to get an agreement with Egypt on this matter which is greatly to the advantage of both countries, but will he also make it clear, as I think he has done, to General Neguib, that there is a public opinion in this country which greatly resents these incidents, which certainly do not make the attainment of an agreement any easier?

Mr. Lloyd: I quite agree with the hon. Member.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Could we not allow our troops a little more freedom to fire off some more mortar bombs in the direction of this indiscriminate night firing, which has consistently been going on against our men?

Mr. Lloyd: The steps to be taken for the security of our troops lie within the power of the Commander-in-Chief on the spot.

Mr. Younger: Does the Minister of of State agree that when outrages have a political cause, as is clearly the case in this instance, and as was the case in the past in Ireland and in Israel and on many other occasions, the remedy must be a political question and not merely blind military firmness?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that all these crimes are political. Very many of them are simply plain thuggery. But we have a legitimate cause for complaint in that we do not think the Egyptian Government have taken the necessary steps to ensure law and order.

Suez Canal (Freedom of Navigation)

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that by the terms of the British-Egyptian Treaty of 1936, Great Britain has with Egypt a duty to ensure the liberty and entire security of navigation of the Suez Canal; whether he will propose to the Security Council that it order action to enforce compliance with the Council's directive to Egypt in 1951 not to obstruct free passage; and whether he will offer Royal Navy escort through the Canal to enforce compliance.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The answer to the first part of the Question is that Article 8 of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, 1936, does not expressly impose any duty to ensure the liberty and entire security of navigation of the Suez Canal. What it does is to give Her Majesty's Government authority to station troops in the Canal Zone
with a view to ensuring in co-operation with the Egyptian forces the defence of the Canal,
the authority to run
until such time as the High Contracting Parties agree that the Egyptian Army is in a position to ensure by its own resources the liberty and entire security of navigation of the Canal.
The answer to the second part of the Question is that the matter being now under consideration by the Security Council, it would be undesirable to disclose the instructions issued to our representative. As to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, our future policy must obviously depend on the outcome of this debate, and it would be most improper for me to commit Her Majesty's Government to any particular course of action at this stage.

Mr. Maitland: Would my right hon. and learned Friend, to whom I am grateful for that reply, not concede that there is an implication in the Treaty and in the body of the relevant documents—such as our recognition of Egyptian independence—that we have a responsibility towards the free world for safeguarding, or helping with Egypt to safeguard, freedom of passage through the Canal? Would he not admit that we do not do well in eyes of the world to abandon this responsibility merely because a previous Government sought to shift that responsibility upon shoulders which were both unwilling and incapable?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree that we have certain responsibilities with regard to freedom of navigation through the Canal. The difference really is a question of method. We have no intention of abrogating our responsibilities in that regard.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister be good enough to state categorically that the obligations upon Egypt to allow traffic through the Suez Canal will be insisted upon by our representative in the Security Council, and that there will be no deviation from this course?

Mr. Lloyd: There is another Question on the Order Paper dealing with that specific matter.

Mr. Strachey: Would not the Minister of State agree that, whatever else experience shows, the presence of 84,000 British troops in this Zone and outside it has not ensured the free navigation of the Canal?

Mr. Maitland: Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the instructions are what matter?

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken about the complaint to the Security Council by the Israeli Government in regard to the stopping of ships by Egypt in the Suez Canal; and the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to this complaint.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The answer to the first part of the Question is that the matter is now before the Security Council. The answer to the second part of the question is that Her Majesty's Government's policy is to uphold the principle of freedom of navigation through the Suez Canal.

Mr. Johnson: Is it not a fact that the action of the Egyptian Government is in contravention of the Constantinople Convention of 1888, and it would be right for Her Majesty's Government to support the Israeli protest and to make it known that they are going to support it?

Mr. Lloyd: What my hon. Friend has said is the view of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Janner: I understood that the Minister, in answer to a supplementary Question earlier indicated that he would deal with it when Question No. 27 was reached. May I ask that supplementary Question at this stage?

Mr. Speaker: No, I cannot allow that.

Suez Canal Base (Negotiations)

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish a White Paper on the negotiations at present in progress between Britain and Egypt on the revision of the 1936 Treaty, setting out the points still at issue.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) on the 25th January. My right hon. Friend has already told the House of the two major outstanding points. He has also undertaken that the House will be given an opportunity to discuss the question at the appropriate time. It would not be in the public interest to reveal more details now.

Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is impossible for people watching these negotiations to escape the conclusion that the British Cabinet have not made up their mind whether they wish to reach an agreement with the Egyptians and that that is the worst form of weakness, and would he further recall that the trouble in Boston over the tea tax was met with the utmost firmness, which resulted in the utmost possible disaster?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been fair to the Government in this matter. They have put forward certain proposals. We think that they constitute the elements of an honourable settlement. Those proposals

have been discussed but have not been accepted by the Egyptian Government, and that is where the matter stands at present.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say how much longer the present points are going to be relevant at all, and how soon the Government are going to withdraw the present terms in the light of the answer he gave to Question No. 17 this afternoon?

Mr. Lloyd: That is quite a different matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIAN OIL (MARKETING AND PRODUCTION)

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made to the United States of America in order to secure Anglo-American co-operation in the finding of markets for Persian oil.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: None, Sir. Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government are continuing to co-operate closely over the Persian problem, and there has been no need for representations on this subject.

Sir H. Williams: Why all this emphasis on co-operation with the United States, having regard to the fact that it was their conspiracy which led to the trouble at Abadan?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly cannot accept what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations for the marketing of Persian oil and the restarting of the refinery at Abadan.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing yet to add to my answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) on 10th February, except that the joint survey mission is now in Persia.

Mr. Grimond: As the Government are the principal shareholders in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, can the Minister of State tell us what instructions have been sent or what views have been put forward by the company about the proportions in this consortium, and what percentage will be Anglo-Iranian?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think it would be in the public interest for me to make any such disclosure at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — B.B.C. OVERSEAS SERVICES

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by how much the grant-in-aid to the British Broadcasting Corporation for its over seas services must be increased for the fiscal year 1954–55 in order to enable it to maintain its present output.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: This question is now being investigated in connection with the normal annual consideration of the Estimates.

Mr. Davies: Will the Minister of State give an undertaking that the services will not be reduced below the present level in view of the assurance, given by the Foreign Office at the time the Drogheda Committee was appointed, that the services would remain at their present level pending the Committee's recommendations'? In view of the failure of the Foreign Office to make those recommendations known to the House, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that the present services will continue during the coming year?

Mr. Lloyd: I must not anticipate the Departmental Estimate, but I have no reason to believe that the hon. Member will have any cause for dissatisfaction on this issue.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman keep in mind that understanding is an even better basis for peace than arms?

Mr. Lloyd: We are fully aware of the importance of these services.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what changes in the British Broadcasting Corporation overseas services are to be made during 1954–55 as a result of the recommendations of the Drogheda Committee.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am not yet in a position to answer this Question.

Mr. Davies: When will the Minister of State be in a position to give an answer? If I put down a Question for next Monday or Wednesday, will he make

a statement to the House? Departments must now be preparing their Estimates, and if they are not aware how much they will be allowed to spend during the coming year, they cannot formulate their programmes.

Mr. Lloyd: As I have said before, the House has been patient in this matter, and I ask hon. Members to be patient a little further. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is responsible to the House for these matters, and he has been out of the country for sometime. I cannot give a definite date. All I can say is that I shall do my best to see that the matter is dealt with as soon as possible.

Mr. Davies: There is a limit to the patience of the House. This matter has been going on since July of last year. We have continued to put Questions regarding the recommendations of the Drogheda Committee. Cannot the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that he will persuade the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House next week regarding the overseas services?

Mr. Lloyd: I have given the hon. Member an assurance that I will do my best to see that a decision is taken as soon as possible.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has the Minister considered publishing the Drogheda Committee's Report before the Government make a final decision, so that the House can judge?

Mr. Lloyd: That certainly is a matter which is very much under our consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — INFORMATION SERVICES, U.S.A.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many information officers this country now maintains in North America: and whether he is satisfied that they have secured adequate publicity for the proper manner in which the United Kingdom has, during the past three years, paid its post-war debts to the United States of America and Canada, in particular, for the payment of $181 million on 31st December, 1953.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I can, of course, answer only for our information services


in the United States. There are in the United States 21 information officers of various ranks. I am satisfied that, in the circumstances, adequate publicity has been secured for our prompt repayments.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is my hon. Friend aware that this sum of money means that every person in this country contributed last year three and a half dollars, and that this is more than each person in the United States contributed to the United Kingdom aid? If this fact were more widely appreciated, would it not help Anglo-American relations and mutual respect?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I do not think there is any question of this country being ungrateful for the aid she has received from the United States since the war.

Mr. Snow: Could some of these information officers seek publicity in the United States for the views expressed this afternoon by the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) on the part played by the Americans in the Persian oil dispute?

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Could my hon. Friend specifically draw attention to these repayments in the directives which from time to time are sent out by the Foreign Office to the British information services in the United States?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I think that adequate action has been taken. I do not think it is for us to boast when we pay our debts.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPUBLIC OF KOREA (ADMINISTRATIVE AREA)

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has received from the United Nations command in Korea about proposals by the South Korean Government for the seizure of territory at present outside that Government's control.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have no confirmation of Press reports that the Republic of Korea have recently raised with the United Nations Command the question of extending the area of their administration and authority.

Mr. Wilson: In view of the publicity given in one Sunday newspaper a week

last Sunday on this question, will the Minister of State inform the House immediately if he receives any information of this intention?

Mr. Lloyd: I have already sought some information.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Eggs (Subsidy)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food how much it cost his Department to subsidise eggs in the four weeks ended 30th January, 1954; and the total sum involved from 1st April, 1953, to 30th January, 1954.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): The cost of the present arrangements for eggs for the four weeks ended 30th January, 1954, was £5·2 million and for the period 1st April, 1953, to 30th January, 1954, £15·0 million.

Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in view of the apologetic attitude of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Food yesterday on the egg blunder, I have not the heart to press the matter again?

Mrs. Mann: In view of the extensive capital made by Conservative speakers in the four recent by-elections about the 2½d. eggs, does not the hon. Gentleman think that the Conservative Party ought to return this £20 million to the Treasury?

Dr. Hill: I am sorry that the hon. Lady is so dismayed at such an abundance of eggs at low prices.

Retail Prices

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Food the retail price of bacon and the retail price of any specified cuts in November, 1951; what are the corresponding prices obtaining today; and what were the highest corresponding prices between these two dates.

Dr. Hill: The average retail price of bacon was 2s. 7d. per lb. in November, 1951, and is now 3s. 8½d. per lb. From October, 1952, until August, 1953, the average retail price was 4s. 0¾d. per lb.
As the rest of the answer contains a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Miss Burton: Does the Minister not think it is a pretty sharp practice by the party opposite to talk about bringing down the price of bacon when they were the first to put it up so much that even now it is a great deal higher than it was when we left office?

SOME RETAIL PRICES OF BACON


—
November, 1951
December, 1953, to date
Highest Intervening Price October, 1952–August, 1953


UNCOOKED AND BONELESS (in slices or pieces):
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


Fore-end or shoulder
…
…
Unsmoked
2
0
2
10
2
11



Smoked
2
1
3
0
3
0


Middle
…
…
…
…
Unsmoked
2
7
3
6
3
11



Smoked
2
8
3
8
4
0


Gammon or ham
…
…
Unsmoked
3
0
4
10
5
8



Smoked
3
1
5
0
5
9


Streak or belly:


thin
…
…
…
…
Unsmoked
1
7

10
2
3



Smoked
1
8
1
0
2
4


thick
…
…
…
…
Unsmoked
2
0
2
4
3
2



Smoked
2
1
2
6
3
3


Back
…
…
…
…
Unsmoked
3
0
4
8
4
7



Smoked
3
1
4
8
4
7


COOKED, BONELESS AND SKINLESS:


Gammon or ham (in slices or pieces)
…
—*
7
0
8
0


Whole gammon or ham
…
…
…
—*
6
2
7
2


* Although subsidisedprices were prescribed for cooked gammon in slices or whole (4s. 2d. and 3s. 6d. respectively) in November, 1951, there were no supplies and high prices (10s. to 12s. per lb.) were obtained for canned ham.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food how much it now costs to obtain the same amount of meat obtainable in 1948 for 1s. 2d.

Dr. Hill: About 2s. 2d.

Mr. Dodds: Is not the increase from 1s. 2d. to 2s. 2d. serious, and does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, if there is to be a further increase following derationing, the only meat which many people in the lower income groups will be able to get will be the scrag end? Will the Minister do something about it?

Dr. Hill: Although the hon. Member's Question implies that the ration of meat was 1s. 2d. in 1948, it was, in fact, 1s. 2d. for only a fortnight of that year, and in the other 50 weeks it was between 6d. and 13.

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Minister of Food the prices of butter,

Dr. Hill: The hon. Lady will recollect that of the average increase of 1s. 1½d., 10d. was necessary at the end of 1951 in order to reduce the subsidies to the level fixed by the party opposite.

Following is the information:

margarine, cooking fat, cheese, bacon and bread, at October, 1951, levels with comparative figures for January, 1954.

Dr. Hill: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the information:

Commodity
Unit
Retail Prices


at 1st October, 1951
at 1st January 1954


s.
d.
s.
d.


Butter
lb.
2
6
3
4


Margarine (domestic)
lb.
1
2
1
6


Cooking fat "
lb.
1
4
1
8


Cheese
lb.
1
2
2
2


Bacon
lb.
2
7*
3
8½*


National bread
3½ lb.
1
0
1
3


* Average of all cuts.

Milk

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Food the weekly consumption of milk in the United Kingdom at the latest data for which figures are available, compared with 12 months and three years ago, respectively.

Dr. Hill: Total liquid consumption was about 28·6 million gallons per week during December, 1953, and 28·8 and 29·6 million gallons respectively for the same period of 1952 and 1950.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not ashamed to participate in the policy of cutting down milk consumption in the country, and what steps does he propose to take to alter this?

Dr. Hill: If the hon. Member examines the figures for last December and takes cream into account, then the consumption was rather higher than a year before. Secondly, the consumption of all milk is affected by the increased amount and variety of other foods available.

Dr. Summerskill: Having regard to the numerous statements which the Parliamentary Secretary has made on this subject in the past, could the hon. Gentleman say whether he proposes to introduce any scheme in order to reverse this most undesirable trend?

Dr. Hill: This "undesirable"trend is a microscopic change in the consumption of milk, which is related, as I have said, to the increased consumption of other foods.

Mr. Burden: Is it not obvious that a great many people who were taking slops when the Socialists were in power are now substituting good red meat?

Captain Ryder: asked the Minister of Food what safeguards will be imposed to prevent the Milk Marketing Board from exercising its monopoly to file detriment of the distributors and to the advantage of its own creameries.

Dr. Hill: The necessary safeguards are now being discussed with all the interests concerned. I hope it will be possible to make an announcement soon.

Captain Ryder: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are considerable misgivings in respect of the Milk Marketing Board, and can we be assured

that it will not be placed outside the consideration of the Monopolies Commission?

Dr. Hill: I am aware of the misgivings which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. They have been the subject of consultations with the appropriate bodies, including the Central Milk Distributive Committee, and it is hoped that a satisfactory solution will be reached shortly.

Meat and Bacon (Derationing)

Mrs. Ford: asked the Minister of Food whether he is now in a position to announce the date for the derationing of meat.

Mr. W. R. A. Hudson: asked the Minister of Food to make a statement regarding the derationing and decontrol of fresh meat.

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Food whether he is now in a position to announce a date for the end of meat rationing; and whether he will indicate the level of the ration during the intervening period.

Dr. Hill: The closely related datesfor the removal of the controls on the sale and slaughter of home produced fatstock will be discussed with representatives of producers, the trade and other parties concerned, and announced later.
What I can say is that meat and bacon rationing will end during the first half of July. This will be the final step in the dismantling of the war-time food rationing system.

Mrs. Ford: Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement will give great pleasure to the housewives of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that he and his right hon. and gallant Friend deserve the congratulations of this House, and indeed of the whole country, for having already so nearly achieved their own political self-liquidation?

Mr. Chetwynd: During the last remaining months of the Minister's occupation of his office, will he exert all his energies to bringing down the prices of these foods, because in the past he has used all his energies to put up the prices?

Mr. Hudson: Is my hon. Friend aware that he and his right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister will be held in high


regard for having arranged for ample supplies of red meat?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the Minister say to what extent the announcement he has just made will or will not entail another Supplementary Estimate before 31st March this year?

Dr. Hill: I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman seeks to complicate this announcement—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—with questions which he knows I shall not answer.

Mr. Mellish: Can we have an assurance that, when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary get kicked out of the Ministry of Food, they will not transfer to the Ministry of Labour because, if they do, we shall have a general strike every week?

Sir I. Fraser: Whilst addingmy congratulations, may I ask my hon. Friend if, seeing that this decision gravely affects the agricultural industry, he has taken steps to consult the industry and will carry it along with him in moving forward to this better and freer era?

Dr. Hill: Clearly it is desirable that the decontrol should happen at the beginning of the flush period, and that is the consideration which we have had in mind in choosing that date.

Imports

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Minister of Food when he intends to return all food imports to private trade.

Dr. Hill: As soon as is practicable.

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Minister of Food which foodstuffs are still imported by his Department.

Dr. Hill: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the list in the Official Report.

Following is the information:

Foodstuffs imported by the Ministry of Food (as at 11th February, 1954) 


Bacon and ham.


Canned fish:


Salmon.


Crab.


Canned fruit:


Apricots.


Peaches.


Pears.


(and mixtures of fruit including one or more of the above-named varieties)

Eggs and egg products:


Hen eggs in shell (from non-sterling sources only).


Frozen whole eggs.


Lard.


Carcase meat and offal.


Canned corned meat.


Milk products:


Block milk.


Butter.


Buttermilk powder.


Cheese (ration types).


Condensed milk.


Milk powder.


Whey powder.


Oils and oilseeds:


Benniseed and benniseed oil.


Coconut oil.


Copra.


Cottonseed and cottonseed oil.


Groundnuts (other than hand-picked selected groundnuts) and groundnut oil.


Palm kernels and palm kernel oil.


Palm oil.


Sunflower seed and sunflower seed oil.


Whale oil.


Orange juice (for welfare scheme).


Potatoes (ware).


Sugar.

Meat Ration (Take-up)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Food whether he will reduce the price of meat to enable people to take up their full rations.

Dr. Hill: No, Sir. They are doing it already.

Mr. Jeger: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, in introducing his Budget a little while ago, the Conservative Prime Minister of New Zealand said that in their chief market, the United Kingdom, there had already been some resistance to higher retail meat prices, a considerable number of people not having taken up their full—

Mr. Speaker: I do not think the Minister is responsible for what the Prime Minister of New Zealand says.

Mr. Jeger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was putting that quotation as a preface to my question to the Minister.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member could put his question shortly without preamble.

Mr. Jeger: I am sorry that I considered my preamble necessary, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to put a supplementary question, namely, in view of the fact that


it is recognised by one of our principal suppliers in New Zealand that the high price prevents people in this country from taking up their full meat ration, why will the Minister not reconsider his decision and reduce the price so that the poorer sections of the population can get their meat?

Dr. Hill: My answer, without preamble, is that practically the whole of the meat ration is being taken up today.

Departmental Stocks

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food what action is being taken to reduce stocks of food held by his Department; and, in view of the general interest, if he will make a statement showing what is involved.

Dr. Hill: As particular controls come to an end the Ministry's residual stocks are being sold through the trades which handle the commodities in question. These stocks are being progressively reduced, but a detailed statement of the position at any particular date would be both misleading and commercially imprudent.

Mr. Dodds: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that of the 500,000 gallons of orange juice only 40,000 gallons have been sold, and that the dehydrated soups have been in store for two years? Is there not some danger that they will deteriorate quickly, and that the longer they are kept the worse they will get?

Dr. Hill: I am aware that there is a quantity of orange juice unsold which was bought by the party opposite. For the rest, I suggest seriously to the hon. Gentleman that no useful purpose is served by making critical and unfounded descriptions of the condition of the stocks we hold.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the unsatisfactory answer, I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Russian Canned Salmon

Mr. Lewis: asked the Minister of Food whether he will make inquiries of the Soviet Government on the possibility of their exporting to this country tinned salmon.

Dr. Hill: Russian canned salmon is still being delivered under the terms of last year's contract with the Ministry of Food. As my right hon. and gallant Friend has already announced, the trade in canned salmon is being returned to private importers this year and he does not, therefore, propose to enter into any new negotiations for supplies. Further imports from Russia this year will be a matter for negotiation by the trade.

Mr. Lewis: Whilst the Minister may not be desirous of entering into actual negotiations, surely he can make some inquiries, because he will agree that if we can get this tinned salmon without spending dollars, it will help the balance of payments. Would he not at least make a few inquiries to assist private business?

Dr. Hill: I take note of the suggestion, but I would point out that about £300,000 of last year's supply has yet to come, and that the new pack does not begin to arrive until the end of June.

Commander Donaldson: Will my hon. Friend keep in mind the fact that the salmon which comes from Canada is also red and that it is preferable to buy from Empire countries than from the Soviet Union?

Potatoes (Stock Feeding)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Food if he can give an estimate as to the quantity of potatoes that will be sold for stock feeding this year; and how this compares with the actual sales for the previous year.

Dr. Hill: My Department sold 404,721 tons from the 1952 crop for stock feeding. The surplus from the 1953 crop seems likely to be a good deal larger, but I cannot yet give a firm estimate.

Mr. Crouch: May I ask my hon. Friend if the large anticipated surplus is due to the fact that there has been a much higher standard of husbandry by the potato producers?

Dr. Hill: It is due to a much higher yield per acre.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the hon. Gentleman say what was the price per ton at which he acquired the stocks and what was the price at which he sold them for feedingstuffs?

Dr. Hill: If the hon. Gentleman will put that Question down, I shall be glad to give what is a rather complicated schedule of prices.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is my hon. Friend aware of how delighted we on these back benches are at the excellent and tolerant manner in which he has answered the asinine questions from the benches opposite this afternoon?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the House would be even more delighted if he could now give us a specific assurance that he will not ask the House to agree to any more Supplementary Estimates in respect of potatoes or any other commodity between now and the end of the current financial year?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTTISH AVIATION, LTD. (TWIN PIONEER AIRCRAFT)

Sir T. Moore: On a point of order. In the series of Questions for written answer, I have on the Order Paper Question 17, which is:
To ask the Minister of Supply whether he is prepared to help Scottish Aviation Ltd. to develop the aircraft known as the Twin Pioneer.
That Question greatly affects the future industry of Scotland. I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, would give me permission to ask it in view of the great

interest that is felt in the subject in Scotland?

Mr. Speaker: That would not be possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Purchase Tax (Ulster Linen Industry)

Captain Orr: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 5th March, I shall call attention to the ill-effect of the Purchase Tax on the Ulster linen industry, and move a Resolution.

Company Dividends (Increases)

Mr. D. Brook: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 5th March, I shall call attention to the recent increases in company dividends and their effects upon wages, and move a Resolution.

Land Drainage Law, Scotland

Mr. Manuel: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 5th March, I shall call attention to the need for the amendment of the law in Scotland relating to land drainage in view of the financial burden, and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—Mr. Crookshank.]

Orders of the Day — COTTON BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 3, page 3, line 5, and Clause 4, page 3, lines 13 and 19, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Peter Thorneycroft.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether you will allow me to move a manuscript Amendment in the following terms—at the end, to add:
and Clause 4 page 3, line 12, and Clause 4, page 3, line 31, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Harold Wilson and other hon. Members"?
The reason I ask leave to amend the Motion for the recommittal of the Bill not merely for the purpose of the Amendments on which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade wishes to recommit but in respect of other Amendments, is that it has been indicated that it is possible that the Amendments referred to in this manuscript Amendment may be out of order on narrowly technical grounds; that is to say, although they are, or seem to be, in order themselves and to be covered by the Money Resolution and would, therefore, have been presumably in order, at any rate on any financial grounds, in Committee, they are not in order on the Report stage because they are outside the scope of the Bill, as it is now, though they are still within the Money Resolution. If that were so, I take it that the Amendments would be out of order on Report, though not out of order in the Committee.
I therefore submit that this is a convenient course and that, since the Bill is to be recommitted in any case, it would be a pity if, when the Bill is again in Committee, the Committee should not have the opportunity of dealing with vital Amendments raising quite fundamental points and should lose that opportunity and then be debarred from discussing them and that the House should be debarred on technical grounds from considering them or adding them to the Bill at a later stage. I submit, therefore, that it

would be for the convenience of the House if I were permitted to move this manuscript Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has given me very short notice of this and I have not had an apportunity to consider his request. Would the hon. Member again signifyto me which are the Amendments now standing on the Order Paper in respect of which he wishes to recommit the Bill?

Mr. Silverman: The first is in Clause 4, page 3, line 12, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no such order shall be made until three months after the Board and the Minister shall have jointly certified that suitable arrangements have been made to ensure the continuance or renewal on fair terms of existing long-term contracts for the supply and distribution to manufacturers in Britain of rawcotton from Her Majesty's colonial territories and other countries and such arrangements have been approved by Parliament.
The other is in page 3, line 31, at the end, to insert:
(4) The Minister and the Board shall be charged with the duty of ensuring a supply of suitable raw cotton to any mill which has been unable to obtain it, and for that purpose may direct any person holding stocks of raw cotton to supply such a mill with raw cotton on fair and reasonable terms, and for such purpose shall be entitledto require any holder of such stocks to sell such stocks or such portion of them as the Minister and the Board shall determine to the Minister and the Board on such terms as the Board shall direct.
The Minister and the Board shall be further charged with the duty to ensure that stocks of raw cotton shall be maintained at all times in the United Kingdom at such levels as the Minister may from time to time determine.
My manuscript Amendment to the recommital Motion, however, applies only to the first paragraph of the second Amendment, in page 3, line 31, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and not to the paragraph beginning,
The Minister and the Board shall be further charged.…
I might explain that the order which is referred to in page 3, line 12, is the order referred to in Clause 4 (1) which gives the Minister of Materials and the Board of Trade the power to make a joint order bringing the Raw Cotton Commission to an end at such time as they are satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the first Amendment that the hon. Member is


referring to is in page 3, line 12, at the end, to insert the words beginning:
Provided that no such order.…
Which is the second one?

Mr. Silverman: The second Amendment is in page 3, line 31, at the end, to insert the words beginning,
The Minister and the Board shall be charged…
and ending with the words:
…on such terms as the Board shall direct.

Mr. Speaker: I have had very short notice indeed of this. I will accept the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member only in respect of the first of these two Amendments because the second one, I understand, is outside the terms of the Financial Resolution and would be out of order even in Committee.

Mr. Silverman: I respectfully agree that that would be true of the second paragraph of the last Amendment—the paragraph which starts with the words:
The Minister and the Board shall be further charged…
but not the first paragraph. I respectfully agree that an Amendment to the second part of that Amendment would be out of order even in Committee.

Mr. Speaker: I am not of the opinion of the hon. Member, but I will allow him to move his Amendment to the recommittal Motion to allow for a discussion on the Amendment to Clause 4, page 3, line 12, standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and other hon. Members.

Mr. Silverman: May I move the manuscript Amendment in the form in which you indicated you would permit me to move it, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Silverman: I beg to move, at the end, to add:
and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 4, page 3, line 12, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Harold Wilson.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 3.—(COMPENSATION TO OFFICERS, AGENTS AND SERVANTS OF COMMISSION.)

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, at the end, to insert:
(3) Any compensation payments made by the Commission before the passing of this Act to or in respect of persons such as are mentioned in subsection (1) of this section shall, if approved by the Board and the Minister after the passing of this Act, be treated as payments made by virtue of that subsection.
The purpose of this Amendment is to deal with the situation which has already been explained to the House, namely, that the Raw Cotton Commission paid certain compensation to its staff in advance of authority. Everyone agrees that, in principle, compensation should be paid to the staff, but it is clearly wrong that any payment should be made by this organisation, or any other, without the authority and permission of the responsible Minister and the House of Commons.
The method by which we had proposed to deal with this situation was the old and well-established one of paying out of the Civil Contingencies Fund. We felt that those people who had been dismissed from the Commission through redundancy owing to alterations in policy with regard to the purchase of raw cotton ought to be compensated, compensated as reasonably soon as possible, and not lose the money which should come to them. I announced that that was the method agreed in the Committee upstairs.
The Commission were told that that was the correct method but, despite this—owing, I think, to an oversight—the Commission paid out some £14,500 to 56 members of their staff on or about 22nd December. No doubt it was a very welcome Christmas present, but, at the same time, it cannot be justified in the House of Commons on those grounds. I did not know, indeed there was no reason why I should have known, that those payments were made. What has been done is in the circumstances quite clear. Payment was unauthorised and


proper course has to be taken to put the matter in order.
I have looked at the precedents on these matters and it appears that in circumstances such as these where there is a general Bill in which the necessary provision can be put, that is the right way of dealing with the matter. I do not suggest to the Committee that it is possible to justify the payments. The Raw Cotton Commission have expressed regret to me that they were made in this manner. There is no reason why they should have been because I, or the Minister of Materials, could have given authority in writing if it was asked. I pass on the regret and apologies of the Commission to the Committee and suggest that this is really the best and most satisfactory way of dealing with the matter.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain to the Committee under what powers the Raw Cotton Commission could have asked him to authorise payments and he could have given authority, because at that time—and still—there is no Act of Parliament which authorises the payment of compensation in these circumstances? How could the President at any time have given authority?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Commission have power to pay compensation under the original Act of 1947, but that did not avail them, of course, in the payment they made because that too would have required authority for the payment. I have not pleaded that in any excuse for what the Commission did, but, if the proper forms had been gone through, payment could have been made.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us under what Section of the original Act of 1947 he was permitted to give such authority?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Section 5, subsection (8).

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the subsection?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Not the whole of it.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: We are, of course, all very glad

to welcome the President of the Board of Trade back from Manchester and to express our delight that he has found time to visit that great city at last. We wish he had been there earlier. We think it is a pity that he had not gone there some time before 22nd December, to find out what was going on. This House is always gentle with those who apologise frankly and admit that an error has been made. I think it is right that we should forgive sins, as we are enjoined to do—

Mr. W. R. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to interrupt a moment? I am sure he will not mind, because this is quite an important matter. I have had a look at the original Act and I cannot understand where the powers are for the right hon. Gentleman to do what he said he could do. I think the President ought to explain before my right hon. Friend continues.

Mr. Marquand: I ought to remind my hon. Friend that we are in Committee, and that he is not underthe difficulty of only being able to speak once; neither is the President of the Board of Trade. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman, while paying partial attention to what I have to say, will also be addressing his mind to that matter and consulting the Solicitor-General, sitting beside him, so that he can prepare the adequate and complete answer for which, I agree, my hon. Friend is right in asking. The President did admit the error. He told us the date on which it had been committed. He indicated the amount of money involved, but he was vague about the authority, if any, which had been used to make this payment. When he told us about it earlier, on Thursday, 4th February, he said specifically that:
The Commission were informed that payments could not be made until proper authority had been given. I regret that the Commission did not wait to receive this authority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1954; Vol. 523, c. 562.]
It really is an extraordinary thing. We cannot let it pass merely by saying, "The President has apologised; he has admitted an error has been made; we have heard of errors before; we shall take note of it, regret it, and hope that it will not happen again."
It is necessary this afternoon to bring it to public attention in a way in which


that has not been possible hitherto when discussing the Bill upstairs in order to see what has happened. The Commission, having no authority whatsoever and having been deliberately informed by the right hon. Gentleman that they had not got that authority and must not make a payment until they received it, nevertheless went ahead and made that payment. So far as we can see, it was a deliberate offence and not, as described by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, merely an oversight.
It may be thought that in emphasising this point I am labouring the situation. But hon. Members sitting in Committee on the Floor of the House have not had the opportunity afforded to those hon. Members who sat in the Standing Committee upstairs to appreciate that the Bill which we are now being asked to amend—by introducing a piece of legislative exculpation for an offence deliberately and flagrantly committed despite a warning—already contains another piece of retrospective legislation. That is an astonishing departure from the traditions and practice of the House.
Two years ago the President decided to destroy the provisions of an Act of Parliament by administrative action. That was the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Act, 1947. It laid upon the Raw Cotton Commission the duty of providing all the cotton required by the industry in this country. To correspond with that heavy obligation, the Act gave the Commission monopoly powers in the purchase of cotton. It expressly forbade the importation of cotton intothis country other than through the agency of the Commission, save for very exceptional purposes.
Yet that Act, if not destroyed, was emasculated by administrative action to an extraordinary extent. Having seen this five-year-old infant, the President opened its veins, and, when it could no longer stand, he said, "Look at this miserable thing. It is not capable of independent existence. Let us destroy it." Now this same right hon. Gentleman—this mercy killer—remembers that once he was an enthusiast for analgesia, so he decides to administer a dose of compensation to make the operation slightly less painful. But that does not alter the fact that what he did was deliberate, and was done with-

out authority. He is hoping to get authority for his action from this House by having already provided in this Bill for retrospective exculpation, and unhappily the Committee has voted in favour of that part of the Bill.
As a result, this Bill becomes an unprecedented Measure which involves two pieces of retrospective legislation both exculpating public officers from grave and deliberate breaches of the obligations placed on them by statute. That is an extraordinary and unprecedented thing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Attlee) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) suggested at an earlier stage to the right hon. Gentleman that the proper procedure would be the introduction of an indemnity Bill. Out of their long knowledge and great experience of this House and its traditions they thought, even on the evidence then before them, that an indemnity Bill would toe the proper procedure. How much more is that true when we realise that there is already in the Bill one piece of retrospective legislation of this character.
It would appear, from this payment without authority of compensation, however well deserved, that a mood of haphazard destruction of the existing public institutions has seized upon everyone in and around the Liverpool Cotton Exchange. Because, during the General Election the Prime Minister made a speech, everyone would appear to have concluded that no one need take any notice of the Commission or the Act of Parliament. It would appear that they think that they may do what they like, pay out what compensation they like, and that they do not need to bother whether it is in the Act or not, because the President will come to the House of Commons and put in right for them.
What a grave blow this is to public administration. Indeed, it is a blow to the whole business of establishing public corporations in this country, and that we shall have seriously to consider at some time in the future. What a blow it is to the high standards of public administration which have been built up over all these years. How can the remaining clients of the Raw Cotton Commission—contractors in, as they are called—feel any confidence in the future after these


two breaches of the law? How can they feel any confidence that the remaining legal obligations still resting on the Commission will properly 'be discharged?
Are we to come to a state in Liverpool where everyone does what he likes, irrespective of the obligations of statute; where no one bothers at all, and the whole thing is torn to bits anddestroyed in the face of a complacent House of Commons—where the President of the Board of Trade and hon. Members opposite do not care twopence about what is happening?
Hon. Members on this side of the Committee wish to see that justice is done to the employees of the Commission. We wish them to have their compensation. They should have ample and proper compensation for loss of office. I think the right hon. Gentleman would admit that it is largely as a result of representations made to him during the Standing Committee proceedings by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and others, that the conditions for the payment of compensation are now being improved.
We do not wish to be misunderstood about this. We do not wish anyone in Liverpool to think that our objection to this Clause constitutes an objection to compensation. But that does not alter the fact that we dislike the thing in principle, and we feel that the President, and Lancashire, and the country ought to know about it.

Mr. S. Silverman: I wish first to refer to what, I thought, was a rather extraordinary statement by the President of the Board of Trade towards the end of his explanation of his Amendment. Unless I misunderstood him, he said that the mistake made by the Raw Cotton Commission, in paying out this money, was a minor mistake, because they paid out the money without the authority of the President which they would have had if only they had applied for it before making the payment.
I should not have thought that the President would regard the making of a payment without his authority—even when there were powers to obtain that authority—as a small matter, unless he regards himself in this, as in other matters, as only a rubber stamp for an outside

interest. That could not have been what was intended in the original Act. Even on the right hon. Gentleman's own showing, the original Act was intended not to give, but to withhold powers from the Commission to make these payments, unless the President approved.
For the right hon. Gentleman to treat as a triviality the fact that payments, which can be made only after his approval has been given, were made before that approval was secured, is to treat himself and his duties to this House of Commons more lightly than he has a right to do. He has suggested that the obtaining of his approval is a mere matter of form, with which the Commission could neglect to comply without committing anything more than a slight technical irregularity; but that is not the whole matter.
The President is mistaken in thinking that the Commission, even with his approval, would have had any right whatever to make the payments. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the 1947 Act. He could have had in mind only Section 5 (10) which provides that any pensions or gratuities under subsections (7) or (8) shall be paid or provided in certain ways. Looking at subsections (7) and (8), one finds that the payments contemplated are entirely different from those in relation to this compensation.

4.0 p.m.

I see the Solicitor-General shaking his head. I do not want to be rude, but there is an old legal joke about an advocate who, in the course of addressing the jury, said, "Members of the jury, you will observe that at this part of my argument his Lordship is shaking his head. When you have had as long an experience of his Lordship as I have had, you will know that when his Lordship shakes his head there is nothing in it. "Until the Solicitor-General explains differently, I shall continue to say—from my reading of the 1947 Act it is perfectly clear—that there is nothing in subsections (7) and (8) which has anything even remotely to do with the kind of compensation payments for loss of office contemplated by the Bill.

The third point I want to make about this part of the matter is that if it had not been for the diligence of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), in discovering


and bringing to light the fact that the payments had been made, the Committee would not now have been faced with dealing with a legal or technical regularity and people would have been compensated on a basis which the President now agrees would have been insufficient, ungenerous and inequitable. We would have been told at a later stage that the scheme had been accepted by all who were directly interested in it, that it had been negotiated by the people concerned, that the Commission and the employees concerned had agreed to it, and that no one ought now to interfere.

Indeed, that was the President's case when we discussed the matter in Committee in the first place, and it was only at a later stage when it was discovered that payments under that wholly inequitable scheme had already been made that the discussion proceeded. As a result, the Government are now proposing a totally different scheme. It seems to me to be a wholly wrong way for any Minister to discharge his constitutional duties to Parliament, particularly when the payment of money is concerned.

I do not want to prolong the discussion about this matter, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) has already said, no one would wish now even to seem to be standing inthe way of proper compensation being paid, and under the new Amendment, having regard to what the President said in a Written answer yesterday, there is no doubt that the scheme under which the compensation will ultimately be paid is a better one than theold scheme. However, having regard to other matters of the same nature that we shall have to discuss at a later stage, the Committee will not allow the President to get away lightly or easily with what was a plain dereliction of his duty to the House of Commons.

Sir Walter Fletcher: I did not intend to take part in the debate, but it is impossible to allow the pompous, inflated speech of the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) to pass without challenge. We know that hon. Gentlemen opposite are masters of inflation in the economy, but they are also masters of inflation politically. Here was a small

mistake—let us admit that a mistake was made—but the earliest possible steps were taken to remedy it. Yet the right hon. Gentleman rose and, with a pomposity which I have rarely heard equalled in the House of Commons, proceeded to make a terrific case out of a very small matter. He will not countenance the payment of £14,000, but apparently a loss of £25 million a year does not worry him in the slightest. Of course it was wrong, but it is to be put right.
There was no reason for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about the visits of my right hon. Friend to Liverpool and Manchester. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) did not go to Liverpool and Manchester very often when the big losses were being made. The right hon. Gentleman went to Huyton often, but I do not think he went to Liverpool. He certainly did not take very much notice of the particulars about pirated designs which I sent him; he very conveniently forgot them.
We have heard a bit of political hypocrisy of the deepest dye, and I cannot let it pass without saying that it is a sign manual of the policy which has stricken hon. Members opposite that, when a mistake has been admitted and the remedy has been put forward, they have to waste our time with the sort of high-falutin', exculpating speech which we have just heard.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the second "payments," to insert "or part payments."
We have been accustomed, in the past, to interventions by the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Sir W. Fletcher) which were a little more directly related to the subject and when he had rather more expert knowledge of the subject on which he was talking. What he has just said would not find an echo in any part of the Committee. In the first place, he commended the President upon being quick to remedy the matter when it came to light. He did not point out that the matter came to light only because of the energies of hon. Members on this side of the Committee.
What the hon. Gentleman does not realise is that, as a result of the President's activities over the last few months, the


Commission have been so utterly demoralised that they do not know what they are doing. We contend that the President's treatment of them has contributed to the Commission's difficulties in buying cotton—the Minister of State yesterday assured us that the Commission still have power to do that—and all their other difficulties. I do not want in any way to criticise the Commission for what they have done in this respect. It is a surprise to me that they could function at all in view of the way they have been treated by the President.
I find rather surprising the hon. Gentleman's remark that I rarely visited Liverpool. I can prove to him that I visited Liverpool at least once a fortnight while I was President of the Board of Trade, which is rather more frequently than the present President has visited it. If the President can say that he has visited Liverpool once a year, it will surprise me. I certainly kept very much closer contact with Manchester than the right hon. Gentleman has done at any time.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) said, we always welcome an exceptance of guilt, however late it may be, and an attempt to put the matter right. We particularly welcome the President on his return yesterday from Manchester. We take some little satisfaction from the fact that he was able to go there only because of the activities of this side of the Committee. I imagine that his Parliamentary Private Secretary will be quaking at the prospect of loss of office without compensation, retrospective or otherwise, because of his inability to take the most elementary precaution of finding the President a "pair. "which I had to do for him. I was only too delighted to see that the President was in Manchester yesterday, and I would not have wanted him to be able to suggest that there was any culpability on this side of the Committee to prevent him from going there.
On the Amendment moved by the President, I absolutely agree with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) and both my hon. Friends who followed him. I hope that the President will accept my Amendment.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: So that the right hon. Gentleman should not be under any

misapprehension, may I say that I did tell him that I thought I could accept his Amendment, but I have since found that his point is already covered in the Bill. I should like him to know now that I cannot accept it, as I thought I might be able to do.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am much obliged to the President for his courtesy, if not his consistency, but when the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Private Secretary, who is certainly earning his pay today, tells me that the President would accept the Amendment, while the President now changes his mind, it does place us in some difficulty. The Government are consistent only in their state of muddle in their relations with the Raw Cotton Commission. Here we have an Amendment which, obviously, I must now commend to the Committee rather more warmly than I would have done when I thought the President was going to accept it.
The reason for my Amendment is this. The President has put forward his Amendment, which is designed retrospectively to validate the action of the Raw Cotton Commission in paying certain cheques on compensation account just before Christmas. What we were concerned about—and this formed the burden of the Questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. F. Lee) when the matter was first raised here a week or two ago—was that the House might, on Report stage or at some other time, be inhibited from moving an Amendment to the form of compensation proposed.
The point is that we, on this side of the Committee, are desirous of moving Amendments on Report stage to ensure that there shall be equality of treatment and non-discrimination between the weekly and the monthly-paid members of the staff of the Raw Cotton Commission. Although we on this side want to be more generous than the President himself has so far been, it may well be that some hon. Gentleman opposite might wish to move a reduction in the amount of compensation, and, if that was so, I would not want to inhibit him in any way, however much I might disagree with him.
The position is that these cheques have been paid. They were paid on the basis of the original compensation scheme


which the President approved after it had been worked out with the Raw Cotton Commission, and which the President, with considerable delay, circulated to the Members of Standing Committee A, and, with even more delay, to the Chairman of that Committee. This provided for discriminatory treatment as between the weekly and the monthly-paid members of the staff, and the one was to receive a week's salary and the other a month's salary for each year of their service.
We were afraid that the President's action on recommittal might prevent us from proposing improvements in that scheme on the ground that the exact wording of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment provides that these shall be treated as payments made. We want to know whether a payment made refers only to the final payment or whether it would include payment in part.

4.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): If I may interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps I might be able to help him on this point, because I see the argument which he is advancing. The right hon. Gentleman wants to be satisfied that, if the Amendment which my right hon. Friend has moved is carried in its present form, and if the rate of compensation is subsequently increased, that increased compensation will be payable to persons who have already received compensation.
If the right hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 3 (3) he will see that the expression "compensation payment" means any payment by way of compensation, and the effect of the proposed Amendment will not, in my opinion, prevent a further payment of compensation to those who have already received a payment, which further payment will bring them up to the scale of compensation which is finally fixed.
It is only because the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposed in his Amendment are really unnecessary that we could not accept the Amendment, but I am quite satisfied that our Amendment in its present form will help him, and not handicap him, in putting forward other proposals, and, if they are accepted by the Committee, they would not in any

way prevent the payment of the increase to those who have already been paid.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and may I also say how much we welcome his attendance here this afternoon? If we had had him in attendance in Standing Committee A when, on one occasion, the proceedings were adjourned for the purpose of his attendance, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will recall—though I admit that it was at four minutes to one o'clock when the Motion was moved—

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): I had no hope whatever that my hon. and learned Friend would turn up at that hour.

Mr. Wilson: However, the Motion was moved for that specific purpose, and the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Motion, and if we had had the attendance of the learned Solicitor-General I think we might have been able to avoid some of the difficulties with which the Committee is faced this afternoon. Certainly, we might have avoided some of the inconsistencies and muddles about the retrospective validation of action taken in error.
When a Law Officer of the Crown comes to the House with the authority of the hon. and learned Gentleman, it becomes difficult to argue with him, and I would not seek to do so. The only thing I would say is that he will realise the difficulty in which we on this side are placed. We have been told so many things with authority by the Government during the passage of this Bill—and in all good faith and innocence we have sometimes accepted them—that we now find ourselves faced with all these difficulties. Even in these last few minutes, as the President has been courteous enough to inform me, there has been a change of attitude on the part of the Government. Goodness knows what they are doing, but it is extremely difficult for us, even after the learned Solicitor-General has told us that we have no need to worry, to accept what he said.
However, we accept what he said, because he said it with great authority, and I am sure he said it with sincerity, and he would be the last to deny any hon. Member of the Committee the


opportunity of moving Amendments to the compensation scheme. On the assurance of the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is clear that we can ourselves move Amendments to the compensation scheme, I would be prepared to recommend that we should now get back to the main question, rather than deal with this question of part payments.

The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Gentleman must not put into my mouth words that I have not used. I cannot say what Amendments would or would not be in order in relation to compensation proposals which may be considered later. All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman—and I wish to make it quite clear—is that, in the Amendment which my right hon. Friend has proposed, which validates pensions payments which have been made, there is nothing, in my opinion, to prevent any further compensation payment being made to those who have already received some compensation, should the House so decide in this matter.

Mr. Wilson: I am very much indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I did not seek to attribute to him powers beyond those already enjoyed by his high office. Obviously, he could not be responsible for what might be ruled either in order or out of order, either on this stage of the Bill or on the Report stage. He was committed only in relation to the question whether the Royal Cotton Commission can or cannot make a second cheque available to members of the staff of the Commission in payment of compensation. So far as that is concerned, I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says.
In view of our experience of the Government's relations with the Royal Cotton Commission, none of us would want to give extended powers to the Government in any question of interpretation, because the things they have told us in the past the Commission could not do we have found the Commission went on and did. That is one of the difficulties. It is in order that my hon. and gallant Friends may satisfy themselves on this question, and that we may be absolutely clear that the Commission are protected, that I have moved my Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I should like to get one or two more words of

explanation from the Solicitor-General. During the Committee stage we debated this matter. I ventured to suggest thatwe had had no information as to the cost of the compensation scheme and I invited the Minister of State, Board of Trade, to tell me what the cost would be. He was reluctant to do so in the absence of the President of the Board of Trade. On the following occasion I invited the President to be a little more forthcoming than his right hon. Friend had been, and the President replied in his usual supercilious manner by saying that the Explanatory Memorandum contained the actual figure of the overall cost of paying compensation.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I take it that the hon. Member is not opening up the whole question of the cost of compensation, as that would not be in order. The sum of money to be paid is £14,500 and that is the only figure which is relevant to our discussion.

Mr. Lee: I would thank the President for doing not only his own job but yours as well, Sir Charles, by pointing out what would not be in order in this discussion.

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman did not do my job very well. I was about to point out that the Amendment refers only to part payment, which is all that we are discussing at the moment.

Mr. Lee: When the President was speaking in Committee about the sums that would be allocated for further compensation, he took the view that we were confined to the specific sum mentioned in the Financial Memorandum. The sum of about £14,000 has been paid out at a certain level in compensation and if we wished to increase certain other sums of compensation we would have to go outside the global figure mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. The fact that this £14,000 has been paid out at a certain rate might jeopardise our opportunity to do that. If any increase in compensation is still to be paid, are we to keep within the figure mentioned by the President? That is the point which is worrying us and I would ask the Solicitor-General to make it clear.
If the Solicitor-General can assure us that the President was wrong in Committee we shall be very happy, but if the President proves to be right, then the


Solicitor-General will be wrong. As they are contradicting each other as to the position, they obviously cannot both be right. I am willing to be convinced that they are not both wrong. On these points we have certain reservations. We do not wish to find that we are inhibited when we come to further Amendments, by finding that this sum has to be paid, and we therefore ask for an assurance.

Mr. S. Silverman: This is a small point, on which both sides of the Committee want thesame thing, and it would save a lot of time if we could get an assurance. If I am not quite happy about the matter it is not because I want to create difficulties.
It is clear that if the Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. Friend were accepted, the matter would be put beyond any doubt or question. I quite agree that if it can be shown that the words are redundant there is no point in accepting my right hon. Friend's Amendment, but if that cannot be shown it is much better to accept an Amendment which puts the matter beyond any possible doubt than to leave the matter in a form in which doubt may remain. The doubt remains, I think, in spite of what the Solicitor-General said.
My difficulty is not quite the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), although it is related to it. The Amendment moved by the President of the Board of Trade begins with the words:
Any compensation payments"—
by which the right hon. Gentleman means payments which were given without authority and which have given rise to his Amendment—
…shall, if approved by the Board and the Minister after the passing of this Act, be treated as payments made by virtue of that subsection,
which is subsection (1) of Clause 3.
My difficulty is to see how that can possibly be regarded as not a full discharge of all authority to make the payments under subsection (1) of that Clause. If subsection (1) gives power to make those payments, and if we add another subsection which says that any payments that have already been made shall be in satisfaction of that subsection, it would look, on the face of it, as if there were

no room for further payments, and that further payments would foe ultra vires.
I am not contending that that would be so, but no one can say that that would not be the position. If neither side of the Committee wishes that to be the position, and if, by the acceptance by the Minister of the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend, the matter can be put beyond doubt, then it would be in the interests of both sides of the Committee that my right hon. Friend's Amendment should be accepted. The worst that could then happen is that there would be possibly three redundant words in the Clause. They would be inoperative and could do no conceivable harm. On the other hand, if we leave them out it is arguable, plausibly and reasonably, that no further powers are to be left in the statute to make the further payments which the President himself wants to make. I subgest that it would be safer toaccept my right hon. Friend's Amendment.

4.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: Perhaps I might just reply on this particular point of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. Of course, any argument put forward by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) always appears plausible. It is put forward in a most persuasive fashion. If I felt that there was the slightest doubt about this I would certainly be in favour of an Amendment to remove that doubt. But although he puts forward the argument in the most plausible fashion, I must say that, after giving the matter most careful consideration, I feel that there is no doubt about it. I will deal with this quite shortly.
The Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend merely refers to payments that have been made. They are described as "…any compensation payments…"—and that is how they should be described. "Compensation payments" are defined in Clause 3 (3) as meaning
…any payment by way of compensation.…
The proposed subsection (3) deals with payments which have been made. There is nothing, in my opinion, in that subsection which in any way prohibits the Raw Cotton Commission making a further payment, with the approval of the Board.

Mr. S. Silverman: They have already done so.

The Solicitor-General: They have made one payment, and can make another. Whether they make one, two or three payments, each will be described as a compensation payment, and, in my opinion, there is nothing to stop that. Therefore, I must advise the Committee—and I do so recognising that it is among one's duties to give the benefit of one's advice, whether right or wrong—that the acceptance of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment to the proposed Amendment is entirely unnecessary. Indeed, the phrase "part payments" does not fit in very well with my right hon. Friend's Amendment having regard to the definition of "compensation payments" in subsection 3 of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) asked me a question which, as I understood it, relates to the totality of compensation. That is not a question for me, or, indeed, one arising on this Amendment. The Amendment deals merely with a point of drafting; as to whether or not the words "part payments" should be inserted in the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend. The point raised is whether, if those words are not inserted, it would be possible to make further payments to those who have already received, quite wrongly, some payment. My answer is that if they should get a bigger payment than they have already received, there is nothing in the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend to prevent that additional sum from being paid.

Mr. H. Wilson: The hon. and learned Gentleman paid a compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) about the plausible character of his speeches. I am sure that my hon. Friend accepted that in the spirit in which it was intended. I might perhaps say that the difference between my hon. Friend and the Solicitor-General is that when we come to read their legal contributions in the next day's Hansard, we can generally understand my hon. Friend rather better than the hon. and learned Gentleman. I say that after reading his contribution in one of the Committees; and I am still uncertain of it.
I think that the Solicitor-General's intervention this afternoon was clear to

both sides of the Committee, and I can only recommend my hon. Friends to accept what he has said to us. It does seem clear that we are not inhibited, at any rate by the President's Amendment, from moving Amendments to the compensation scheme. Perhaps the subject becomes a little academic when one realises the difficulty of moving such Amendments on Report. The Committee will notice that we have not suggested that, so far as the recommittal stage is concerned, the manuscript Amendment should cover questions of compensation. While reserving the position for the future—because one does not know what will occur—we do not feel ourselves very much inhibited this afternoon.
Many of my hon. Friends would like to get back to the main Amendment. It seems apparent that interest in this Bill is very much stronger on our side of the Committee than on the other side. I cannot see many of the Lancaster Conservative Members opposite—in fact, I cannot see any. I think they are already aware of the fact, as I pointed out, that none of them would be here if their constituents had known how they would vote last week.

Mr. W. R. Williams: We are assuming that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Sir W. Fletcher) has gone out for information, so that next time he will know what he is talking about.

Mr. H. Wilson: Many Members on this side are concerned about the Bill, about compensation and about the issue of equity, and discrimination in the payments of compensation, and are proud of the part they have played in Committee. I feel I am expressing their views if I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment so that we may deal with the President's Amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs. Braddock: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Sir W. Fletcher) is not in his place. Those of us who know how ill he has been know that it is difficult for him to sit for a long time listening to a debate. Quite obviously, he has said what he had to say and has gone outside.
I am sorry that he is not here, because I can quite imagine the hullabaloo there


would have been from the present Government benches if we had been the Government and had made the mistake of paying money without statutory authority as the present Government have done. I can quite understand that the "backstage noises off" of which the Tory Party have so many—and particularly the "drinking song" bass voice of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)—would have been in great demand had hon. Members opposite been in opposition.
The President of the Board of Trade and the Government should be very pleased indeed that the comments so far made have been of such a very conciliatory nature, because there is no doubt that the President had no knowledge at all of what the Raw Cotton Commission were doing with regard to compensation. As the Member for a business constituency in Liverpool, and knowing what is going on in every part of it, whether in the business or the working-class sections, I was able, with the assistance of one of my constituents, to draw attention to this action. Otherwise, it is quite possible that it would have passed unnoticed and at some future date the Treasury might have had something to say about this—or perhaps not. It might not have been discovered until the Labour Government returned to power and, looking at documents, discovered that this sort of thing had been happening.
I want to say one or two things about the need for recommitting the Bill, and about what actually happened with reference to compensation. We in the Standing Committee had spent time discussing compensation. We discussed it before the Christmas Recess, and were promised a copy of the suggested scheme. At that time I believe it was headed "Scheme of Compensation for the Staff of the Raw Cotton Commission. "My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr.H. Wilson) and I had been privileged to see a copy, and saw that there were some bad discrepancies to which we wanted to draw attention. When we returned after the Christmas Recess some of us received a copy of the document on the first day that the Standing Committee met. Other Members of the Committee had still not seen it. They did not know what the suggestions were and they found the greatest difficulty in per-

suading anybody on the Government side to make public in the Standing Committee what the recommendations were.
Eventually, when this matter was discussed and hon. Members received a copy of the scheme, Amendments were moved, and some were accepted. I referred to a letter which I had received from representatives of the redundant staff. On making inquiries, I found that many of the staff of the Raw Cotton Commission had already left. They knew that things were becoming difficult and they knew that it was the policy of the Tory Government completely to get rid of the Raw Cotton Commission as soon as possible. They had not waited to be made redundant; they had attempted to find other employment, knowing the employment difficulties which exist in Liverpool. Many of them left before they received notice of redundancy and, of course, under the scheme, did themselves out of the payment of compensation altogether.
Many of these men are clerks who had held positions in previous years in cotton firms, and they knew that there were no regulations and no powers under the original Act to permit the Raw Cotton Commission to pay them compensation for redundancy. The relevant Section of the Act gives power to the Raw Cotton Commission to make appointments to the staff for the purpose of carrying out the Commission's operations. The Section gives the Commission power to institute pensions and gratuities, but no Section of the Act gives it power to pay compensation to staffs made redundant.
I cannot understand the statement from the Government Front Bench that power already existed. I am quite certain that if the Commission already had the power, the Government would not have gone through the indignity of bringing forward a Bill to include a Clause which would give the power they already had. They would have referred to the power they say already exists but which everybody who has read the Act knows does not exist.
After the debates in the Committee, I thought it would be advisable for those redundant staffs whom I had seen to know exactly what discussion was taking place in Standing Committee, and I sent them a copy of the Standing Committee Report. As I said in Committee, I was


amazed by the reply I received. I could not quote the whole letter in Committee; it seemed to cause some sort of upheaval in the mind of the President of the Board of Trade. It seemed to be completely taboo to read such a letter in Standing Committee.
In any event, I received this letter and it gave me quite a surprise. It came from the deputation. They said they could not understand what the Committee were talking about. They could not understand the Committee discussing compensation because they had already had the compensation. Peculiarly enough, although hon. Members of the House and the Standing Committee had not seen a copy of the scheme, a copy of it had been enclosed in a letter to every one of the redundant staff, reaching them early in December. Thus, a decision had been taken by some section of the Board of Trade or the Minister or the Treasury that, despite the fact that Members of the Standing Committee were to discuss compensation and had not seen the suggested scheme, copies of it should be sent, through the post, to those who were to get compensation. These people knew their exact entitlement.
In his letter my correspondent said he received an excellent Christmas box, because on Christmas morning he received a cheque for the amount of compensation.

Mr. William Keenan: Perhaps the President wanted to be Father Christmas.

4.45 p.m.

Mrs. Braddock: The point was that they had received the money arising out of a scheme which was under discussion at that time in Standing Committee. I therefore thought it was my duty to raise the matter. I did raise it, and this debate today is the result.
During the discussion on the scheme of compensation certain promises were made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and the Minister of State, Board of Trade, about watching the position and seeing whether the scheme could be improved. There has been a recommendation of an alteration in the compensation scheme so that the payments to these people will be the subject of further discussion and amendment later. What will be the position of

those people who were paid their compensation on Christmas morning? As soon as the Bill becomes an Act, will they receive the difference between the compensation paid them and their entitlement under the altered scheme? Will they receive the increase provided by the alteration in the suggested scheme of compensation? Will it be sent to them irrespective of any differences there may have been or of anything which may have happened?
I am told that there has been some discussion about the fact that many of the clerks are now in other employment and do not require compensation. I am sorry that the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson) was withdrawn, because I think it made it perfectly clear that there was an obligation to pay the extra amount to the redundant staff when the Bill becomes an Act.
None of my hon. Friends wishes in any way to hold up the scheme of compensation or the payment of the extra compensation. I am certain, however, that there has been some neglect, and some lack of knowledge and lack of contact between the Government Department responsible and the Raw Cotton Commission, and I am sure that is because the President has not been very pleased about the whole question of breaking up the Raw Cotton Commission. He and his Government know that the decision to break up the Raw Cotton Commission, leading to the necessity to pay compensation to redundant staff, will have a disastrous effect on employment in Lancashire and on the ability of the spinners in Lancashire to get the type of cotton they need if they are to continue to produce the goods which Lancashire produces either for home use or for export.
I suggest that the Government Front Bench, and particularly the President of the Board of Trade, should keep an eye on what is happening in the Department. All these things are important; they all matter to some section of the community. I am quite sure that if an individual in private business had been responsible for paying money from a private firm which he was not entitled to pay, there would have been someone else needing compensation and being declared redundant in the job.
I think we are entitled to tell the President that, instead of being jocular about this matter and instead of grumbling because comments are being made, he ought to be particularly pleased that we have been so moderate in our attack upon him, because we realise the sort of attack which would have been made upon us if we had been in his position.

The Solicitor-General: Perhaps it would be convenient for me to deal with some of the legal points and some of the arguments which have been advanced. Everyone recognises that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) has performed a useful service in drawing attention to this matter, but I think that she is under some misapprehension about the precise nature of the matter to which she has drawn attention.
After making some remarks about my right hon. Friend, she said that the Government paid the money. She condemned the Government for what they had done. In fact, the money has been paid to these people by the Commission out of the revenues of the Commission. What has happened is that it paid out that money without obtaining the necessary authority. The fault is the fault of the Commission. It is not the fault of my right hon. Friend. It is perfectly clear and beyond doubt if hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite would only consider the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Act, 1947.

Mr. H. Wilson: I have looked at that.

The Solicitor-General: It is clear beyond doubt that the Commission is a body corporate having its own independent existence. It is not, as the hon. Lady seems to think, part of the Board of Trade. It is something separate. It has powers, and it has acted in excess of those powers. If we were taking the attitude in relation to any of the bodies created by the party opposite that one had to have a whole series of detectives following them about to see that they did not act in excess of powers, I imagine that we should be subjected to powerful criticism.
One must look at the Act of 1947 to see what are the President's powers. He has powers to give directions of a general character. He has powers to obtain information and to ask questions. But it is

clear that it was never the intention of Parliament that he should interfere in the day-to-day conduct of the affairs of the Commission. No Minister would readily assume, or be right in assuming, that a statutory body like the Commission would act in excess of its power. I listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), which was really an indictment of the Commission. It was not at all an attack upon my right hon. Friend. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman concluded by asking how can contractors after what has happened, with the Commission acting in excess of its powers, feel any confidence that the obligations of the Commission will be fulfilled.
As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said that he did not want to criticise the Commission, there seems to be a little inconsistency between the two right hon. Gentlemen. The truth is that here is a most unfortunate action by the Commission in excess of its authority. Under subsection (8) and (10) of Section 5 of the 1947 Act, if the Commission had obtained the authority and approval of the Board, and it may be of the Treasury too, they had power to pay pensions and gratuities on the retirement or death of any agent or servant of the Commission.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say why he has put forward the Amendment?

The Solicitor-General: I thought I had made that clear. I thought I had explained several times. It is because the Commission made the payments without first getting the necessary approval.

Mr. S. Silverman: Surely this is a completely false point. If all that was wrong was that the Commission failed to get approval and what was desired by this Amendment was to put right that rather technical flaw, we would not have had an Amendment like this. The whole Clause of the Bill, not merely the Amendment, would have been unnecessary.

The Solicitor-General: I do not agree.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. and learned Gentleman should.

The Solicitor-General: I do not. The hon. Gentleman may think that he is


giving me instructions. I know that he gives instructions to counsel now and then but, as he knows, counsel do not always agree with him.

Mr. Silverman: They disagree at their peril.

The Solicitor-General: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not say the same about judges when they disagree. Looking at the powers of the Commission without the passage of the Bill, I should have said that if they had obtained appropriate authority they would have been acting intra vires. They did not obtain it. That is why the Amendment is necessary.

Mr. Marquand: If it was entirely within the sphere of responsibility of the Commission and of nobody else, and if it be true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think, to suggest that it was a mistake to hold the President of the Board of Trade in any way responsible for that, in spite of the traditions of Parliament where normally Ministers accept responsibilities of that kind, how does the Solicitor-General account for the fact that the President of the Board of Trade told us that the Commission had been warned that it did not have these powers? How could the President warn them if he does not have the sort of defective service that the hon. and learned Gentleman says that he does not have?

The Solicitor-General: The intervention is based on a number of hypotheses which I do not accept. I will deal with the final point which the right hon. Gentleman raised. My right hon. Friend said in his statement that he had no knowledge whatever that these payments were being made and was not consulted about the making of them. I do not think that he said that he warned them not to make them. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should look at the actual words. On the second point, that it is the custom of the Minister to take responsibility, of course the Minister takes responsibility for the actions of civil servants in his Department. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that the Commission is a statutory corporation. It is not part of the Board of Trade.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am not satisfied with the hon. and learned

Gentleman's interpretation of subsection (8) of the Act of 1947. The provision speaks about determining the gratuities or pensions that may be paid
…on the retirement or death of any of them.…
Obviously these people did not retire, because retirement is a voluntary action. They were given the sack and pushed out. They did not die. With the greatest respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman who occupies one of the highest offices of State in the Government, I must dissent from his interpretation of this provision. I say that the President had no power whatever, and neither had the Commission.

The Solicitor-General: I do not say for one moment that the President had no power whatever. That is just what I am not saying. He was not asked to give his approval. I did not think there was any doubt that what happened was that the Commission paid out of its revenues compensation to people who, to use a colourless word, were ceasing to be in its employment. It had no authority to do that without approval. I thought that was the admitted ground on which the debate was taking place.

Mr. Price: I do not agree.

The Solicitor-General: I thought that that was what had been said throughout. I thought it was common ground on both sides. The Commission paid out the money before the Bill was passed providing for this compensation scheme. They paid it out without authority. That, I thought, was common ground. What we have got to do is to deal with that situation. Whether they had power to make the payment under the 1947 Act, with the necessary approval, as I think they may well have had, is really irrelevant. Whether they had that power or not, and whether the hon. Gentleman is right or I am right, is immaterial because they had not got the required approval. They had no approval at any time. Therefore, whether or not they had the power under the 1947 Act, with approval, the need still exists to validate what they have done.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Marquand: Mr. Marquand rose—

The Solicitor-General: I give way as much as I can, but I am trying to put forward a logical argument.

Mr. Marquand: I acknowledge that the Solicitor-General is being pressed, and I am sorry. But he did doubt the accuracy of what I said just now, and I should like to repeat a quotation, since he has just outlined what he submitted was common ground between us.Is it also common ground between us what the eight hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said on 4th February?—
The Commission was informed that payments could not be made until proper authority had been given."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1954; Vol. 523, c. 562.]
Does that word "informed" mean that somebody wrote and told them, or does it mean, as the Solicitor-General now seems to suggest, that they were informed in the general sense? Surely "informed" means that they were specifically told that they ought not to do it, and yet they did it.

The Solicitor-General: No, the right hon. Gentleman is reading something that is not there. As I understand it, there is no suggestion that they would make payments on their own authority, but one gathers that there were discussions as to the compensation to be paid. It was in the course of those discussions that they were told that they could not make those payments without authority. Then, having been told that, they still made the payments. My right hon. Friend had no knowledge or reason to suppose that they would make payments. They did not even threaten to do so. My right hon. Friend had no information which would lead him to suppose that they had made an unauthorised payment.

Mr. S. Silverman: Surely the basis of this whole argument is whether, without the Clause which we are now seeking to amend, the Raw Cotton Commission had any power to make compensation payments of the kind we are contemplating. The Solicitor-General says: "Yes, it would have been all right if only they had first applied for permission." What we are trying to point out to him is that that was not the President's opinion at the time.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at column 402 of the Standing Committee Report on 28th January, he will see that the President of the Board of Trade intervened in a speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) to say:

It is agreed that the purpose of these Clauses"—
the relevant ones that we are now discussing—
is to enable the Commission to pay compensation."—OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 28th January, 1954; c. 402.]
If the purpose of the Clauses is to enable the Commission to pay compensation, is it not a reasonable inference that without the Clauses they had no power to pay compensation?

The Solicitor-General: That is a different point from the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Silverman: I do not think it is.

The Solicitor-General: I think it is, because the right hon. Gentleman said, "Why did he give a warning if he did not know what they were going to do?" I was explaining that the information was given, without there being any indication that they proposed to make an unauthorised payment.

Mr. F. Blackburn: How was that information given?

The Solicitor-General: I do not know whether it was given over the telephone, by post or in conversation.

Mr. Silverman: Or at all.

The Solicitor-General: Yes, it was given.

Mr. Blackburn: When?

The Solicitor-General: I do not know if it was in the afternoon, evening or night, and it is not material to this discussion.
Coming to the point raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), it is desirable to insert express powers in relation to a compensation scheme, but whoever may be right as to the powers under the 1947 Act, there can be no dispute that when those payments were made there was no authority to make them. The Raw Cotton Commission were acting ultra vires, because in no circumstances had they obtained consent for making these payments. It is common ground that those payments were made ultra vires because the Commission had not got any authority.

Mr. Silverman: Ultra vires in any case?

The Solicitor-General: Ultra viresin any case. Therefore, the problem we have to consider is this. We have to remedy that situation because no one in this Committee wants a demand to be made on the people who received the compensation to refund it. In our view, the right way of dealing with that situation is by this Amendment retrospectively validating those payments.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why there should not be a Bill of indemnity. His right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) urged that upon myright hon. Friend when my right hon. Friend made his announcement to the House. Of course, we considered that. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South had great personal experience of the need of a Bill of indemnity where there had been an error in theadministration of his own Department. But this is not an error on the part of the Board of Trade. It is an error on the part of the Raw Cotton Commission, and in our view there is no need for a separate indemnity Bill. What is necessary is some provision of this character validating payments made without authority by the Raw Cotton Commission.
I think the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange performed a useful service in drawing attention to this matter, because one does not want statutory bodies, no matter by what Government they may be set up, to act in excess of the powers which they have been given by Statute. While a useful purpose has been served, I hope I have been able to carry the Committee with me in the view that this provision is necessary and desirable to validate those payments and to secure that the persons who have received them will not be required to repay them to the Raw Cotton Commission.

Mr. Keenan: I am rather alarmed by the disclosure that the President of the Board of Trade and the junior Ministers in that Department seem to have little or no connection with the Raw Cotton Commission. It was asserted at the outset that there was authority for the Commission to make these payments but that authority had not been sought; yet it was later disclosed during the Committee stage that the Minister did not know what had taken place.
I am deeply concerned that the Raw Cotton Commission, which is so important—as important as anything can be in the textile industry because of the supply position—should have been so loosely controlled and, in fact, should have been without any control at all from the Department, so that they could use funds which they held for purchasing raw cotton when somebody in the Commission decided that a compensation scheme should be evolved. I am not talking about the merits or the demerits of that.
However, the Commission decided to compensate some people, to run down its activities, and to move towards its dissolution. This is rather alarming. In what position has the President of the Board of Trade been during all this business? We on this side have been voicing not only the opinion of the textile workers, but the opinion of the textile employers as well, and their fear of what the Commission has been doing. The Commission decided within the last six months to wind up, and the way in which it was to wind up, and to pay compensation. The President of the Board of Trade does not know anything about it. What has the right hon. Gentleman known of the activities of the Commission for whose disposal he is providing?
It is pretty clear that the Government have not given the serious consideration to the disposal of the Commission that they should. There are two hon. Members opposite who represent cotton constituencies in Lancashire. One was upset because we on this side were not satisfied with the casual explanation given by the President and the Solicitor-General. I should like to know from the President the answer to this question. Has he at any time in the last 12 months done anything to direct the operations of the Commission, or even to advise the Commission in any of its administrative acts? Has he been concerned with the way in which it was to fold up? He was obviously not aware of what would happen tothe staff in that event, or of what they would get when dismissed.
Surely, that is a condemnation of the conduct of the President of the Board of Trade in connection with the Commission. That exposes his lack of knowledge and his indifference. I should like him to tell us how much he has known of the activities of the Commission. He has dis-


closed to us quite clearly that he knew nothing of the arrangements it was making for the disposal of the staff upon the curtailment of its activities.
As we told him in Committee, there will be very serious consequences arising out of this Bill. Such an admission as we have had that it was the right hon. Gentleman's opinion that the Commission had the power to do what it was doing is a staggering revelation. It shows that the President does not know very much about the Commission, of which his hon. Friends have complained that it was losing £25 million last year. The right hon. Gentleman knows nothing about it. Because of his lack of knowledge of and contact with such an important body that has Government credit the President now has to bring in a scheme such as this.

5.15 p.m.

The Commission pays compensation, without consultation, out of public funds, and the President knows nothing about it until my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) gets to know from a constituent of hers what is going on. We are entitled to ask for a clear explanation. We are entitled to know more than we have been told. The President must admit that so far hedoes not seem to have known very much about the Commission. He certainly has not known a great deal about its activities in the last 12 months. This provision proposed now is necessary to regularise the position, but we need to know more about it.

Mr. W. R. Williams: The Solicitor-General has quite amazed us today. I was one of those in the Committee upstairs who urged upon the Government that we should have a Law Officer of the Crown there to assist us. I am most thankful now that he was not allowed to come in. We had tremendous difficulty with the President of the Board of Trade himself. I do not know what difficulties we would have experienced if the President had been reinforced by the Solicitor-General, if the Solicitor-General had been in the form he is today If anybody can tell me, after the explanation of the Solicitor-General, what the position of the Commission vis-à-vis the Board of Trade is, then he is a magician of the first order. I see the hon. Gentleman the Member for

Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) shakes his head. He is the sort of person who does do that when he has nothing else to do.

Sir William Darling: I have been sitting here, an independent arbiter in this matter. I heard my hon. and learned Friend, who made what to me seemed a perfectly clear case, that interference with the Commission would be interference by Parliament with its statutory powers. So I was awake.

Mr. Williams: I feel quite sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman would not take up a challenge from me to write down in a rational form the arguments that were used by the Solicitor-General in the last half-hour or so.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Whether the hon. Gentleman would or would not is not relevant to this Amendment.

Sir W. Darling: Are you ruling, Sir Rhys, that I am not to take up the challenge?

The Deputy-Chairman: I did not say that. I said that that was not relevant to this Amendment, and I think it is time we came to the end of this discussion.

Mr. Williams: If I could have the protection of the Chair from people who interrupt without knowledge, I should be able to keep strictly in order and to take less time. The Solicitor-General referred to the original Act. I am no lawyer, but that is not a disqualification from reading plain English. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that Section 5—I am talking about the original Act now—makes it perfectly clear that here is a corporate body the constitution of which makes it a separate entity from the Board of Trade.

Sir W. Darling: Hear, hear.

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman accepts that, then I may say that he was awake while the Solicitor-General was talking about that. I would refer the Committee and the Solicitor-General to another Section of the Act of 1947, Section 7. It deals with the powers of the Board of Trade in relation to the Commission, and says:
The Board may, after consultation with the Commission, give to the Commission


directions of a general character as to the exercise and performance by the Commission of their functions in relation to matters appearing to the Board to affect the national interest, and the Commission shall give effect to any such direction.
That seems to make perfectly clear the overriding directional powers of the Board of Trade in relation to this most important corporate body.
Hon. Members who were in the Committee upstairs realised instinctively, at an early stage in our discussion of this matter of compensation, that the President of the Board of Trade was walking on thin ice; and, more than that, that the President himself realised that he was walking on thin ice. I do not want to go any further than that, or to pretend that there was any question of deliberately misleading the Committee. I want to be more generous to the President than to say that.
He was misleading the Committee, not purposely, but obviously through ignorance, and that ignorance has arisen from the fact that there was no channel of communication between the President, the Board of Trade and the Raw Cotton Commission. No wonder—because the Solicitor-General now says that there should not have been such a channel, and that this is a body corporate in its own right. In this most serious situation I am very glad that the Solicitor-General was not in the Committee upstairs to advise us on the legal aspects of the matter.
The President did not know very much about this business, and, whether or not the Solicitor-General agrees, the President ought to be most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) for having brought to notice such an important departure from the path of morality. We pressed the President very forcefully with regard to the amounts of compensation in the scheme before the Committee. Incidentally, it took us all our time to have the scheme made available. We were more fortunate than the Chairman of the Committee, who had to wait another day, and, as far as I recollect, had to make a special application for a copy of the scheme which the Committee were discussing.
When we pressed the President about certain details of the scheme, and about the consultation which had taken place

with associations and individual members of the staff, he could tell us nothing. He tried to bluff his way through. That is not unusual. Ministers do that, and the President is pretty good at it. Unfortunately for him, on this occasion the Committee included people with very realistic minds, like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange, who were not prepared to accept that bluff. After we probed deeply into the situation, we found that certain members of the staff could not have been consulted by an organisation because there was no organisation which could deal with them.
I shall leave that point, because I can see that the President is getting a little agitated, and he may suggest that my remarks are not strictly in order, but I submit that they are, because this is additional proof that the President of the Board of Trade had no idea of what was going on. I should have thought he would have been a bigger man than to have hidden behind the Raw Cotton Commission. A mistake has been made by a Department, and in the history of the House it is usual, in such circumstances, for the Minister concerned to accept the blame and appear here in sackcloth and ashes.
We did not expect that he would send the Solicitor-General here in order to say, "No, no; it is not the President's fault. He had no authority, and no connection with this matter. There is no channel or connection between the President and this body, the sole responsibility is that of some poor fellows in the Raw Cotton Commission." I do not accept that view. I believe that there has been a breakdown in the normal channels of consultation between the President, the Board of Trade and the Raw Cotton Commission. It is with great reluctance that I am prepared to absolve him from blame. It is only because hon. Members on this side of the Committee are big-hearted that we are prepared to do so. Throughout the proceedings upstairs we did everything we could to facilitate the passing of this Bill, in the form which we thought was best in the interests of all concerned.
I have great misgivings about the whole thing. In my view, we should have forced the President to bring forward an indemnity Bill, in order to make him appreciate fully, as a responsible Cabinet Minister, that this kind of thing cannot be


done with impunity, and to make clear to him that there are people here who are very seriously concerned with the integrity of parties in these matters. On second thoughts, however, and in order to facilitate the business of the Committee, I do not propose to oppose this Amendment, but I say that with great reluctance.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: On a matter of real public importance my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) has done a very great service in bringing this matter to the attention of the Committee. I listened with keen interest, as I always do, to the learned Solicitor-General, but this afternoon he went remarkably far in his argument, and I wonder whether, when the implications of what he has said come to be considered, he may not regret the lengths to which he went.
As I understand the proposition which he put before the Committee, it was that certain matters may be laid down in an Act of Parliament as things which can be done only with the approval of the Minister. He went on to argue that if certain things were then done without the approval of the Minister, no blame attached to him for allowing those things to go on without his approval.
The implications of that proposition are rather serious, and I suggest that it is carrying the argument dangerously far. As my hon. Friend the Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams) has pointed out, there is another Section of the principal Act which gives the Minister power to give directions to the Commission to carry out certain matters. Where does the argument of the Solicitor-General lead? It leads to the point that the Minister may give directions and, if the public body, corporation or commission concerned fails to carry out those directions, the Minister is entirely absolved from responsibility for its failure to do so.
That is a quite untenable proposition. When the Minister is given powers of direction it is part of his duty to see that those directions are carried out. When a body is given certain powers which can be executed only with the approval of the Minister, it is part of the Minister's duty to ensure that they are not carried out without his approval. I agree that it

would have been far better if the President had taken full responsibility for this technical though serious error, and I regret that he has not done so.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Lee: The Solicitor-General was arguing two things and confusing them both. He deployed the argument that the day-to-day administration of the Commission was not a question for the President of the Board of Trade. I do not think that anybody on this side of the Committee has tried to suggest otherwise. But from that premise the Solicitor-General went on to say that the President could not therefore be held responsible for the payment or wrongful payment of compensation. If that is so, the payment of compensation, whether rightly or wrongly, is a day-to-day task of the Raw Cotton Commission. That is only logical from his argument. If it is assumed that the payment of compensation is a day-to day sort of job, then one would agree with his argument, but I do not think that on reflection he would care to argue that point too far.
I should have thought that, so far as the President is concerned, his liability for this sort of thing has been pretty clearly established by the statements that he himself has made in Committee—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) quoted one. The Solicitor-General said that my right hon. Friend was trying to read something into it which was not there, but I got the impression that the Solicitor-General was really complaining that my right hon. Friend was ignoring something that actually was there.
When we look at Clause 3 (2), we see that it says:
References in this section to the determination of matters there under are references to the determination thereof by the Commission with the approval of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Materials (hereafter in this Act referred to as 'the Board' and 'the Minister' respectively).
If we relate that to Clause 4 (2), we find that it says:
The Board and the Minister, with the consent of the Treasury, may jointly give directions for the making, out of moneys belonging to the Commission, of compensation payments.…
How is it possible for the Solicitor-General, in view of those words in the Bill, to argue that the Commission was


of itself to blame for the wrongful payment of compensation while the President himself was immune from blame? I should have thought that, on the words I have quoted to the Committee, it is abundantly clear that the onus of responsibility is placed directly upon both the President and the Minister of Materials for whatever happens in the way of compensation payments. I do not at all like the way in which the Solicitor-General has handled this matter.
Some of us, both on this side and on the other side of the Committee, at times have had to go to the Dispatch Box and explain things which have gone wrong in Departments for which we were responsible. I do not think that I have ever known an occasion while I have been in this House when any Minister blamed either his civil servants or people in any way related to his Department—in the way which I have shown in Clause 4 (2) the Raw Cotton Commission is related—and I do not think I have ever heard from any Government or any Minister of a Government a defence which in effect consisted of throwing responsibility off the shoulders of the Minister on to people who could not answer for themselves in this House. That is a very serious matter.
I suggest that, that being the case, one is not exaggerating the position when one thinks that perhaps the Solicitor-General and the President are able to do that merely because, from now on, they are talking about people who will no longer be in the employ of the Raw Cotton Commission. They are talking in terms of a post-mortem, as it were, on people who have done something for which they themselves, I agree, must accept some responsibility, but the main responsibility for which must lie with the President and the Minister of Materials.

Mr. J. T. Price: Does not my hon. Friend's argument carry even greater force when we remember that in the immediate future, following the passage of this Measure, the Raw Cotton Commission will be under the responsibility of disposing of the stocks still residing in their hands, public property valued, I believe, at about £100 million? Are we to receive any assurance that the Minister will not come to this Box at some later period and deny any respon-

sibility if that public property is not disposed of to the advantage of the taxpayers of this country? Will he say, "It has nothing to do with me"?

Mr. Lee: I think that my hon. Friend's logic is perfectly correct. If there is any responsibility on the part of the President that would be the obvious corollary to it. I was making the point—and I am not trying to make a political issue of this—which I think is recognised on both sides of the Committee, and certainly is one which has been honoured by Governments as far back as I can recall, of acceptance by a Minister of responsibility for that which is done in his name.
I can recall to the Committee that when I have, from that Box, made statements which were afterwards shown to be wrong, I made them on the advice given to me, and when I came to the Box again to admit I was wrong, I certainly did not try to blame the civil servants or anybody else. I suggest—and I hope I am wrong in suggesting this—that this may be a new departure which may well lead to all sorts of unpleasant things. It may lead, so far as the Civil Service is concerned, to a feeling of insecurity in giving advice to Ministers, which would be to the disadvantage of present Ministers and Ministers to come, and for these reasons I hope that the Minister will not deploy that sort of argument, when I think that we are able to show that the President himself in Committee accepted liability, and when I contend that in the Bill which we are now discussing that liability is placed upon him. I suggest it is quite wrong and detrimental to the best interests of Parliament that such statements should be made.

Mr. Marquand: The President of the Board of Trade, when he told us that he was going to apply this procedure this afternoon, emphasised very strongly that it would be debatable. We have taken some time to debate it, and I think that all those who have listened to the debate throughout will agree that the time has been very well spent; that Parliament could not have ignored what has happened.
It is perfectly clear that a very serious breach of law and order was committed. There is no doubt at all that the Raw


Cotton Commission, as the Solicitor-General says, were responsible for this grave error. The President of the Board of Trade, on the other hand, told us—as I have repeatedly quoted—that the Commission were informed that payments could not be made until proper authority had been given. Therefore, if the responsibility rested entirely on the Raw Cotton Commission it is all the worse because they have made this grave error in complete defiance of the information which they undoubtedly had.
I think that it has been shown during the debate that that information did come from officials of the right hon. Gentleman. They very likely did not tell him what they told the RawCotton Commission. That may be so, but that is not relevant. Any action taken by the right hon. Gentleman's officials is taken by him—that is the law—and there is no doubt whatever in my mind that he bears some responsibility for what was done. I think that the debate has shown that.
At any rate, the Commission on the 22nd December—I think that was the date as now established—did pay out money which they were not entitled to pay. On 20th January, in Committee upstairs, we were still discussing this Clause of the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman in that discussion said—and it is on record—that we were being very helpful. That was one month after these wrongful payments had been made, and he did not know about it even then, because he did not tell us anything about it. So it remains in our minds that this responsibility is shared between the statutory body and the right hon. Gentleman.
We have brought to light all these serious facts: they have been thoroughly debated in Parliament. I hope that all hon. Members opposite and the country as a whole will now know about them. In order that we may now proceed to other important matters which we want to discuss, and that these employees of the Commission should get their rightful compensation, I advise my hon. Friends to allow the President's Amendment now to go through.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. H. Wilson: Although the Committee will wish to get as quickly as possible to Clause 4, which we have always-regarded as the most important Clause in the Bill, I do not think we should allow Clause 3 to pass from our control with out one or two words about it.
We have been shocked this afternoon to hear from the Solicitor-General, on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade, how tenuous has been the link and the intercommunication between the Board of Trade and the Commission. When we heard the excuses given that the Commission had done it and it was not the fault of the Board of Trade, we on this side of the Committee were not at all impressed. The Solicitor-General tried to point to an apparent discrepancy between what my right hon. Friend said and what I had said. When I said that I did not blame the Commission, I meant that the President of the Board of Trade had so demoralised them in the last few months that they simply did not know what they were doing. That is what I said before, but the Solicitor-General did not seem to appreciate the point.
We have been very surprised by this defence by the Government, that they did not know the Commission were doing this and the Commission did not have any power to do it, but did it, or alternatively, depending on which reading one takes of it, they were not warned by the Government, and that whether or not they were or were not warned, they committed this breach of the law. But on the wider issue of the Clause, it is right to remind the Committee that, despite all this rather regrettable history, the Clause is a valuable one which the Committee as a whole will welcome.
The Clause began as a result of pressure from this side of the House in the first debate that we had had for a long time on raw cotton, which took place last July. When the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Sir W. Fletcher) stalks into the Chamber, as he did this afternoon, and says that we were not willing to debate the fact that the Commission had lost £25 million last year, how wrong he is. Last July, shortly after the publication of the Annual Report of the Commission, and somewhat to the surprise of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), who was generous


enough at the time to say so, it was we who took the initiative in asking for a debate on raw cotton and on the activities of the Commission and on the Hopkins Report.
It was during that debate that we pointed out that the President had gone a long way in straining the legislation which had been committed into his hands, and we then raised the question of compensation for those who had already been made redundant. It was then that we were first informed by the President that the Commission had no power to make these payments. That was in July. We pressed him that he should, nevertheless, seek powers, and we promised that we would facilitate such powers being granted by the House.
We pressed the right hon. Gentleman again when the House returned in October. In November, when the Government announced, through the medium of the Gracious Speech, that they were to abolish the Commission, we pressed the President again. Then the President introduced the Bill, with great speed, after the Queen's Speech. That showed that he had the question of compensation well in mind. But it was in successive stages of the debates in Standing Committee that the President told us more than once that without this Bill the Commission had no power to make these compensation payments.

5.45 p.m.

It is surprising, in view of the number of times the President said that, and with authority—and these things were reported in the Press, in Liverpool and elsewhere—that he now says that the Commission did all this and obviously did not know what they were doing. It was the more surprising since we had already, early in January or soon after the resumption of the work of Standing Committee A, pointed out that the Commission had anticipated the decision of Parliament in respect of the statistical part of the Bill. It would be out of order to go into that in detail, but, since we had warned the President that the Commission were behaving in this somewhat irresponsible manner, he should have been all the more careful about the question that we are debating on the Clause.

Having said that, I return to the main point. We welcome the fact that the President has authorised the Commission

to make compensation payments. We welcome the fact that, in accordance with the announcement made yesterday, we should be debating this when we reach the Report stage, because my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) has put down an Amendment. We welcome that one of the Written answers given yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman to the hon. Member for Garston (Sir V. Raikes) made it clear that he had accepted our suggestions about discrimination between monthly and weekly paid wage earners.

When we read, for instance, in the "Manchester Guardian" such statements as those made irresponsibly by the hon. Baronet the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow), saying that we had delayed the passage of the Bill through Committee, it is relevant—

The Deputy-Chairman: That is scarcely relevant to the Clause. I point out also that there has been a full discussion on compensation in the debate on the Amendment, and I should not think it would be wise to carry that discussion much further at this point.

Mr. Wilson: I had no intention of carrying it much further, Sir Rhys. As I said, we want to get to Clause 4.
The debate this afternoon, however, has been on the narrow point caused by the malefactions of the President or the Commission, or whoever was responsible. Now, the Committee are asked to agree to the Motion, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—that not merely the President's Amendment, but the Clause, should stand part of the Bill. The Clause raises the whole issue of compensation.
We would have been having this Report stage and recommittal earlier had the President accepted our proposals about the Clause sooner. We wasted three or four hours in Committee when the Minister of State, Board of Trade, was unwilling to accept our proposals about equality of treatment, only to be told by the President when he came back to our meeting that he was willing to accept them. We welcome the fact that only this morning he was able to announce that he has accepted our proposals in this respect.
It has been made clear by the Solicitor-General this afternoon, and we accepted


his statement, that nothing that has so far happened in respect of compensation payments will in any way inhibit the further action of the Commission in carrying out the amended compensation scheme which the President announced yesterday. The Commission can pay a second cheque, or, as the Solicitor-General said, a third cheque, if necessary, to carry out whatever compensation scheme is finally agreed by the Commission, with the approval of the Board and of the Minister, as required in the Clause.
Since the matter must be regarded as still being open until the Clause passes from our control, I appeal to the President once again to look at the question of the inequitable treatment of members of the Commission's staff who, under threat of redundancy, sought employment elsewhere. The Government, I know, will reply that only those who were actually redundant must get compensation under the Clause, but there has been great unfairness in the treatment of certain members of the staff who, only three or four days before they were due to receive a written redundancy notice, were offered employment elsewhere, took that employment, and now are told that they do not get a penny compensation.
I know there are difficulties—the right hon. Gentleman explained them fairly in the Committee stage; but, nevertheless, I suggest that that rigid system of equity that he attempted to work out should be tempered with some degree of mercy and humanity in relation to those who have left. I hope the President or the Minister of State, Board of Trade, or whoever is at present attempting to re-establish telephonic communication with the Raw Cotton Commission will bring to the attention of the Commission—

Mr. S. Silverman: What about telepathy?

Mr. Wilson: We have relied on telepathy up to this and it has obviously broken down. I am now recommending telephonic communication. Whoever is trying to establish that communication with the Commission will no doubt appreciate the desirability of urging the Commission to include in their scheme—and I believe it will be possible to do this without throwing the door wide open

—those who have become redundant and who anticipated—as the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education is present I should say that I mean "anticipate" in its strict and narrow sense—what will happen to the Raw Cotton Commission.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take this question up with the Commission and approve any scheme they might have for paying compensation, which I think is morally due, to such persons. We have been told this afternoon that it is within the right of the Government in the light of this Amendment to make additional payments, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(Provision for dissolution of Commission.)

Mr. H. Wilson: I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no such order shall be made until three months after the Board and the Minister shall have jointly certified that suitable arrangements have been made to ensure the continuance or renewal on fair terms of existing long-term contracts for the supply and distribution to manufacturers in Britain of raw cotton from Her Majesty's colonial territories and other countries and such arrangements have been approved by Parliament.
I have already given notice of my intention to move this Amendment in the Committee stage. As hon. Members will see from the Order Paper, it was put down originally for the Report stage, but we are proposing now to take it during the Committee stage.
In Clause 4, the Government propose to take power to abolish the Raw Cotton Commission by order whenever it appears to the Board of Trade and to the Ministry of Materials that it is in the public interest so to do. We have already had it made clear that the Board of Trade is not going to approach this question with an open mind in any way, because it has decided in advance what action it intends to take when it appears to the Board to be in the public interest to make the order. I personally think that is a serious abuse of the powers which it is seeking in the Bill, but I shall not press that point at this particular moment.
What we seek to do by the Amendment is to ensure that the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Materials—if there is still a Minister of Materials at that time—will not regard it as being within the public interest to abolish the Raw Cotton Commission until adequate arrangements have been made for the marketing of cotton from the Colonial Territories and certain other countries which have been supplying us on the basis of long-term contracts.
This is a matter which has legitimately worried not only hon. Members on this side of the Committee, but hon. Members opposite as well. It has caused very considerable concern in Lancashire. For instance, on the Second Reading of the Cotton Bill more than one hon. Member opposite raised the question. I think that the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Horobin) was among those who mentioned the matter, and others have done so as well.
At about the time of the Second Reading, I put down a Question to the President of the Board of Trade about the marketing of Commonwealth cotton. Of course, these questions were bandied about from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Materials and back again and no one knew whether the Minister of State, Board of Trade, was answering his questions in his capacity as Minister of State, Board of Trade, or in his capacity as being responsible in this House for Questions to the Ministry of Materials. From recent experiences we have had, it appears that the decision was taken in such a way that he did not have to give an answer—or is that fair to the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Amory: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is unfair to me because the Questions yesterday were properly Questions for the Ministry of Materials.

Mr. Wilson: I should not be in order in pursuing that point, but I want to be fair to the right hon. Gentleman. Apart from the schizophrenia which has possessed the Board of Trade through this Bill, here were questions on matters affecting both the Departments in which he has responsibilities, and we thought it would be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to answer them.
As I said, in November last I put Questions to the right hon. Gentleman about

the marketing of cotton from the Colonies. I asked what consultations there had been with colonial Governments before this rash, unwarranted decision about the Commission was taken. We were assured that there had been consultation with colonial Governments wherever appropriate, and with colonial marketing boards which are responsible for the handling of raw cotton. We were not told what views had been expressed by these Governments, and we can only imagine what views were put forward, knowing, as we do, to what extent security had been given to colonial cotton producers by the existence of the Raw Cotton Commission and the long-term contracts which they were able to undertake.
However, the Government—and I want to be quite fair about this—did admit and accept responsibility in respect of long-term contracts. They accepted the fact, which I think all hon. Members would accept, that if the Raw Cotton Commission are wound up and there is a reversion to private buying, then the Colonies are likely to be in for a very thin buying time. It was clear to everyone of us that if there were a reversion to private buying most of these long-term contracts would disappear and the purchase of colonial cotton would very sharply be reduced.
On previous occasions we had good reason for saying that the re-opening of the Liverpool Futures Market and the closure of the Raw Cotton Commission would increase the dependence of this country on American supplies of cotton. That is supported by the experience of those in the trade who have knowledge of these matters. I do not need to repeat the arguments that were deployed during previous stages of this Bill, but that is clear from the form of the futures contract which is being worked out; and it is clear from the way the convenience of those with past associations of certain Liverpool firms with certain American firms is being studied. These and other factors will increase the dependence of Lancashire on the United States for the supply of raw cotton, and correspondingly their associations with the various colonial producing areas will decrease.
That being so, we think that the President has a very real responsibility both to Lancashire and to the Colonial Territories to clear up this situation


before he takes the irrevocable decision of abolishing the Raw Cotton Commission. We were told at various stages in answer to Questions in the House, and also during the Committee stage of the Bill by the President and by the Minister of State, Board of Trade, in whatever capacity he was answering at the time, that it is intended in some way to carry on these long-term contracts. The President looks surprised at this suggestion.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean carry them on in the sense of fulfilment or of renewing them after they have come to an end?

Mr. Wilson: I can only ask what the Government mean, because their language is rather vague. As we interpreted it, we understood that where there was a contract in force it would be honoured to the end and, wherever appropriate, it would be renewed.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Mr. Thorneycroft indicated dissent.

Mr. Wilson: That is an important admission. The Minister of State, Board of Trade, was speaking in both his capacities in this connection and we asked him who would make the contracts. He told us that either the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Materials would do so.
At a later stage the right hon. Gentleman said in the House, in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) that the Board of Trade did not make any long-term contracts. We understood that, because it is a matter for the Ministry of Materials, which we know is to be wound up soon. However, we always assumed from what the right hon. Gentleman said that these long-term contracts could be renewed and would be renewed by the Government.

Mr. Amory: If the right hon. Gentleman will look back to what I said on Second Reading, he will see that I stated quite clearly there that, while it was the firm intention that these long-term contracts should be honoured to the full, there was no intention that they would be renewed by the Government.

Mr. Wilson: We sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in this difficult position of having to speak for two

Departments at once, and this may be the explanation of the double talk that we have been getting from him throughout the proceedings on this Bill.

Mr. S. Silverman: There has been no communication between them.

Mr. Wilson: I think my hon. Friend is wrong; there is communication between the Ministry of Materials and the Board of Trade through the right hon. Gentleman. We interpreted what he said as meaning that these long-term arrangements would be continued in some form, either by Government Departments or by private enterprise. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman tells us that all those long-term contracts will finish at the end of their period, then I say to him that this callous, cold-blooded policy will have a serious effect on Lancashire and an even more serious effect on the Colonies.

Mr. Blackburn: In fairness to the President, it ought to be said that on Second Reading he stated that existing contracts would be retained. He then went on to say, "I did not say that they would be renewed." Of course, he did not say that they would not be renewed. I agree with my right hon. Friend that on the Committee stage of the Bill we were led to believe that they would be renewed.

Mr. Wilson: That was my interpetation. This Bill is making, as it has done thoughout, complete nonsense of the whole policy of the Government. The Government tell us that they are interested in colonial development and in peace in Colonial Territories. Just as we find them at one time talking about peace in Malaya and at another depressing Malayan standards because of their East-West trade policy, so we now find them regretting the political difficulties in Uganda and other African Territories and at the same time happily telling us that, whilst they will honour long-term contracts as long as they run, at the end of the period they have no proposals for reinstituting those contracts.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the reason these Colonial Territories have increased their production of cotton has been that they knew there was a market in this country through the medium of the Raw Cotton Commission. Now we shall find them betrayed by this


action which the Government have taken, as we have heard this afternoon, not for the first time, at the behest of the political pronouncement of the Prime Minister in Liverpool early in October, 1951.
What does this mean for Lancashire? It means that the Lancashire cotton industry will be allowed to continue in full production assuming it can get markets and assuming that those markets have not been ruined by the other activities of the Government in their negotiations with Japan. It means that the Lancashire cotton industry can continue in production for just as long as we have enough dollars to buy American cotton. The moment, however, that we run into dollar difficulties, all that we have done in the last six, seven or 10 years to build up colonial supplies, will have gone with the wind and there will be no supplies of raw cotton.

Mr. William Shepherd: I am trying to follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. Would he tell me what the circumstances are that will force a spinner now satisfied with the price, quality and delivery of colonial cotton, to find as soon as this Bill is passed that the price, quality and delivery previously agreeable will cease to have any interest for him?

Mr. Wilson: I am not suggesting that the purchase of colonial cotton will stop altogether. Certain kinds of colonial cotton will be required on quality grounds, but I am saying that once these long-term contracts come to an end there will not be that assurance in the Colonies which will cause them to plant that amount of cotton.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) did not give us the benefit of his knowledge of these questions during the Committee stage, because we were able then to show in successive sittings that the scales will be loaded so heavily in favour of American cotton, because of the futures contract and the rest, that it is unlikely there will be the same bias in favour of using colonial cotton as there has been in the last few years. Therefore, once we run into a dollar crisis, we shall find that Lancashire will be in a serious position simply because production will have been cut back in certain Colonial Territories, and Lancashire will be more dependent on the United States.
Equally one must ask what will be the consequences to the Colonies. Only a few days ago we were debating the Japanese Trade Agreement. I do not want to repeat the arguments used on that evening because most of them would be out of order tonight, but I think it is in order to mention the question of the purchase of raw cotton from Uganda, which was the subject of a letter in the "Manchester Guardian" not many days ago. The Committee will recall the position with regard to Uganda cotton.
During the war, and for the first few years afterwards, this country, in association with India, bought practically the whole of the Uganda cotton crop. In 1951 we bought on our behalf, or on behalf of India, because we did the bulk purchasing for India, £9,460,000 worth of Uganda cotton. Japan got what was left over, which was about £250,000 worth. In 1952, once the President had started his depredations on the activities of the Raw Cotton Commission, whilst we bought about £8 million worth, the Japanese bought £3 million worth. I should not be surprised if in 1953 the figures worsen still further.
Of course, from now on we shall have the position that the Japanese will be free to buy all the Uganda cotton they want, and they will do it in a much more purposeful manner than our private buyers. Indeed, I should not be surprised if the greater part of that cotton will be going to Japan and only the smaller part of it coming to this country. I suggest to the President that this is not a matter for the mirth in which he appears to be indulging. It will not be a matter for amusement in Lancashire. It is difficult for him to go to Lancashire now, but I do not think that he will dare show his face there at all in a few years' time when the mills are stopping because, in this wanton way, he has cut off colonial supplies to Lancashire.
The same is true of other cotton territories. One could mention the Sudan, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) is a great authority. My hon. Friend has been invited more than once by the Sudan Government or the Gezira Board to go into the question of Sudan cotton and marketing arrangements. We know that


one of the reasons for the spectacular increase not only in cotton production but in development generally in that area is that the Sudan authorities and the Gezira Board were able to obtain a market in this country for their products.
I should imagine that the authorities in the Sudan, with all the political uncertanties and unsettlements that there are in that country at the present time, must be very worried indeed because the President of the Board of Trade has cut off the source of the demand, the purchasing authority, the Raw Cotton Commission, which was buying that Sudanese cotton. That is very serious indeed. The Foreign Secretary and others at the Dispatch Box opposite say how they hope that the Sudan will not be unmindful of this country's friendship for her, and at the same time the President, just because of this sell-out to the Liverpool cotton speculators, destroys all the good that successive Governments have tried to do in building up relations between this country and the Sudan.
I very much fear that this will lead to a reversal of that wonderful success story, perhaps the most successful in the whole history of world development, that has been unfolded in the Sudan.

Mr. Philip Bell: I am interested in Sudan cotton because I represent a Bolton constituency. Are the right hon. Gentleman's fears that the production of cotton in the Sudan will go down because the Raw Cotton Commission are not buying, or are his fears that other people will buy and we shall not get our share?

Mr. Wilson: There are other hon. Members who have a closer connection with this matter and can answer the hon. Member more authoritatively than I can, but some part of the answer is that already the Sudanese are having to lookout for other markets. They are not certain that the British market will continue.
At a time when we are facing a prospective shortage of Sudanese cotton, about which I have given to the House more than once authoritative quotations, the Sudanese cotton marketing authorities are looking for other purchasing sources. We can be quite certain that the Japanese textile interests, so greatly encouraged by

the generosity of the Board of Trade, will not be backward in coming forward for Sudanese supplies. Before long that will lead to a shortage in this country of those supplies.
Furthermore, if the Sudanese authorities are unsuccessful in finding other markets, there may be a fall in production. It is difficult to forecast. So far, all we know is what happened last week in the market when certain Egyptian speculators got in and bought up a substantial part of the stock.

Mr. Keenan: They bought 20,000 bales.

Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend is quite right. They bought 20,000 bales of Sudanese cotton, which in the ordinary course of events one would have expected to come to this country, and which would have come under long-term purchasing arrangements but for the action of the President of the Board of Trade.
I should like to remind the Committee of what has been achieved in the production and marketing of colonial cotton. The figures I use have all been given to the Committee or to the House of Commons by the President. Incidentally, it is very odd that in this case we have the President giving the figures and not the Minister of State, Board of Trade, as representing the Ministry of Materials, but some day we shall understand this great mystery of which Minister answers Questions on what. These answers were, in the main, given by the President, although I agree that the Minister of State, Board of Trade, gave some of the others.
The percentage of raw cotton imports coming from Commonwealth sources—and I include the Sudan—increased from 23 per cent. of the total amount in 1938 to 37 per cent. in 1952. That is a remarkable achievement. Many people have taken pride in it. A year ago the chairman of the Empire Cotton Corporation gave corresponding figures at the Corporation's annual meeting and rightly expressed great pride in what had been achieved. I think that the wartime Government and the Labour Government from 1945 to 1950 can take very great pride in what was done to develop the production of and marketing arrangements for colonial cotton. I should like to remind the President of some figures


which he gave to the House of Commons last July in answer to a Question which I put to him.

6.15 p.m.

One finds that there came from British West Africa in 1938 0·8 per cent. of our total cotton supplies. In 1952, 7·3 per cent. of our total supplies came from that area, an increase in physical terms, given in centals of 100 lb., of from less than 95,000 to nearly 432,000. In the case of British East Africa, supplies to this country increased from less than 170,000 in 1938 to over 515,000 in 1952, thus rising from 1·4 per cent of our supplies to 8·7 per cent. in 1952.

One finds that the amount coming from Kenya, for instance, doubled over that period and the amount coming from Tanganyika more than doubled. The amount from Uganda increased four and a half times. And these are areas about which Questions are put to the Colonial Secretary almost every week regarding the difficulties and the political problems which he has to face there. These are the areas which have shown a big increase in cotton supplies to this country during the last 14 or 15 years, and these are the areas which the President is now casting aside.

The President will not do it deliberately. He will say that it is a matter for private purchase, but he knows perfectly well that handing over to private buying will mean that the amount bought from the Colonial Territories will be very much reduced compared with the figures which I have just quoted. Therefore, we feel that the President and the Ministry of Materials should change the policy which they have put forward in Clause 4 of this Bill and which they have announced in speeches made in another place, in the House last November and also in Standing Committee.

In those speeches they have made it quite clear that they have decided already that it will be in the public interest to abolish the Raw Cotton Commission on 31st August next or thereabouts. We say to them that they have a duty to Lancashire and a duty to the Colonies to ensure that the marketing arrangements which have continued in the past shall continue in the future. We say that if they insist on abolishing the Raw Cotton Commission, which is the best possible instrument

for continuing these purchases, if they insist on pursuing that frivolous course, they have a duty, before abolishing the Commission, of either ensuring that private interests will make these long-term contracts or that the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Materials shall themselves make them.

Therefore, our Amendment proposes that before the Government shall have the power to abolish the Raw Cotton Commission, whatever views they may have formed, several months ahead, about this question and about what the public interest will dictate, they should report to Parliament the arrangements they have made for continuing the marketing arrangements for colonial cotton and, having done that, secure the consent of Parliament. Only after that—as we say in the Amendment, three months after that—shall they have the right to bring forward the order abolishing the Raw Cotton Commission.

That is essential. It is a duty which the President of the Board of Trade owes to Lancashire—a part of the country which he has put far too much to the back of his mind. It is a duty which he owes to the textile industries and the 300,000 workers in cotton and associated industries. It is a duty which the whole Government and the whole country owe to the Colonial Territories, for which we bear responsibility in this House and in the eyes of the world.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: It might be convenient if I say a few words at this stage. May I first recall the Committee to the Amendment we are discussing? The Amendment suggests that we should insert in Clause 4 the words:
Provided that no such order…
That is an order winding up the Raw Cotton Commission—
…shall be made until three months after the Board and the Minister shall have jointly certified that suitable arrangements have been made to ensure the continuance or renewal on fair terms of existing long-term contracts for the supply and distribution to manufacturers in Britain of raw cotton from Her Majesty's colonial territories and other countries and such arrangements have been approved by Parliament.
What that does is to say that the whole of Clause 4—the effective Clause in the Bill and which gives power to wind up the Raw Cotton Commission—shall be


postponed until the Board or the Minister shall satisfy the House that adequate arrangements have been made to carry on these contracts, both in the case of the Colonial Territories and other countries, unspecified, as well.

Mr. S. Silverman: Surely, on consideration, the President will agree that that is a very unfair way of putting it. It would only be true if under subsection (1) the Minister and the Board had the unconditional right to make an order abolishing the Raw Cotton Commission; but their right under subsection (1) is not unconditional. They can only do so if they are satisfied that it is in the public interest so to do. This Amendment does no more than draw to the attention of the Board and the Minister one very vital factor in estimating what the public interest requires.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not withdraw a word of that. What the intention is was absolutely plain. Indeed, if the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) had paid to his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) the compliment of listening with close attention to his speech, he would have been left in no doubt about it either—

Mr. Silverman: I listened very carefully.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The proposal here is that we should not, in fact, make an order to wind up the Raw Cotton Commission until we have renewed these contracts, not only in the case of the Colonies, but in the case of other countries as well.

There are arguments in favour of bulk purchase—

Mr. H. Wilson: Mr. H. Wilson rose—

Mr. Thorneycroft: If the right hon. Member had allowed me to finish the sentence, I was going to say something which I hoped would be rather welcome to him.
There are arguments in favour of bulk purchase on long-term contracts for the purchase of cotton from the Colonies. No one will dispute that. No one will dispute that some benefits have, and can, flow from that kind of arrangement. There are advantages in having a free

market in cotton, advantages that flow not only to the purchasers of the cotton but to the producers of cotton—very solid advantages.
But to say that the Board and the Minister should certify that particular arrangements, which the right hon. Member may think are right, have been made before the Board can make any order to wind up the Raw Cotton Commission would be to stultify the purpose of the Bill. The object of the Bill is to wind up the Commission and to allow private purchasing of cotton to take its place. If private purchasing of cotton is to take the place of the present arrangements, surely the Board and the Minister cannot certify that those long-term contracts are necessarily to go on.
One point I want to make absolutely plain. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, in an intervention, put his finger on this question. Clearly, we must honour existing contracts. I agree with him and I do not think any Government would have any option in the matter. When contracts of that type have been entered into it is clear that one must give the other party to the contract—in this case the colonial interest is involved—unless they decided for their own good reasons otherwise, the fullest opportunity of getting any benefits which they think might accrue from carrying the contract to its logical conclusion. On that I can repeat the assurance I have already given.
I do not think we need debate the matter of the precise machinery. In any event, I am not in a position to make final announcements on it. Discussions are going on at present between us, the Colonial Secretary and colonial interests concerned. I have no reason to suppose that there are any insuperable technical difficulties in the way of carrying those contracts through and that will be done. With regard to the future—the stage beyond the termination of those contracts—it is plain that under the plan as envisaged in the Bill, and discussed in the House on many occasions, it is our intention that the purchasing of raw cotton should be returned to private hands. If we are to do that it is clear that the terms upon which the purchases are to be made will be fixed in the open market—

Mr. H. Rhodes: Mr. H. Rhodes (Ashton-under-Lyne) rose—

Mr. Thorneycroft: Will the hon. Member allow me to finish the sentence?
It is quite possible to say that this is the wrong way of doing it and to argue against it. Hon. Members on occasion have done so and, as they are entitled to do, have adduced arguments to suggest that that is disadvantageous to all concerned. It is plain that if we are to pursue that policy we cannot say we will postpone the act envisaged by the Bill until we are satisfied that we have pursued the opposite policy. That would make complete nonsense of the Bill. Therefore—[Interruption.] I am not going to sit down until I have given the Committee the benefit of my full knowledge on this subject. In its present form this Amendment would completely stultify the Bill and, therefore, I must ask my hon. Friends and the Committee generally to reject it.

Mr. M. Follick: Mr. M. Follick (Loughborough) rose—

Mr. Thorneycroft: Would it be convenient for the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) to make his intervention now?

Mr. Rhodes: ThePresident has already conceded that there are times when it is a good thing to have private purchase and other times when it is a good thing to have bulk purchase. He is destroying the machinery of the Raw Cotton Commission and saying that now it is a good thing generally to return to private purchase and that arrangements can be made privately. When is he going to give an opportunity for purchases which will come under the heading of bulk purchases, which are to the advantage of the trade? Will he give an opportunity later to the Minister of Materials to buy cotton in bulk, or does he not think that will be necessary at all? That is all I want to know at this juncture.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Thorneycroft: "Industry"—I think I heard the hon. Gentleman use that term—is free to make any arrangement it wants about this. If industry, or any industrial group, wish to enter into any arrangement they like, there is nothing that I or my noble Friend would do to prevent them. All I am saying is that it is clear that under the Bill, and under our policy as now put forward, the

Raw Cotton Commission and the Government will not be doing bulk purchasing—once these initial contracts have run out.
I do not propose to take a dogmatic view about the value of the bulk purchasing of cotton. I have already said that I consider there are arguments both ways about it. When the right hon. Gentleman says it would be rather a pity in the case of Uganda, he should remember that it was not a matter of bulk purchase in that case for the 1952–53 season. On the whole, Uganda has expressed readiness to get away from bulk purchase. Favourable views on bulk purchase are not unanimously held in the Colonial Territories—

Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Rhodes rose—

Mr. Thorneycroft: One moment—

Mr. Rhodes: But I must intervene; this is important—

Mr. Thorneycroft: It is, and the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of saying what he thinks about it.
It is quite wrong to imagine that the Colonial Territories are necessarily wedded to the idea of bulk purchase. It is equally wrong to assume that the establishment of a free market in cotton is necessarily disadvantageous to the colonial producers. It is my belief that our colonial cottons will stand by themselves. I believe that, on their merits, they will command markets, not only in Lancashire, but in other parts of the world as well. It is, perhaps, not very favourable to colonial cottons and colonial producers to suggest that the only method open to them is some long-term bulk purchase arrangement. That is not the view of the colonial producers, it is not my view and I do not think it is the view of most well-informed persons in Lancashire.
The real criticism of this Amendment, however, is that, worded in the way in which it is, it asks the Board and the Minister to certify that arrangements for the renewal of contracts are to go on before the order is made. That is really to ask us to postpone indefinitely the effective operation of the Bill.

Mr. H. Wilson: I did not want to raise this on a point of order, although it could almost have been made a point of order, and that might have saved the time


of the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that the President has misread the Amendment, because some ten minutes ago the words he used were that the making of this order would be postponed until existing contracts had been renewed. That is not what we are asking. We are asking for some assurance, some certification that arrangements are available for renewing them. We do not want to wait for existing contracts to run out—some of them with two years to run—and then insist they be renewed. We wish to be satisfied that there is machinery and adequate arrangements for renewing them.
May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman about one other point in relation to the wording of the Amendment? He seemed to suggest initial dilatoriness, in the sense that it would postpone beyond the date fixed in his own mind, and in the mind of the Minister of Materials, the date settled for the winding up of the Raw Cotton Commission, namely, 31st August. It is perfectly possible for the right hon. Gentleman to end the Commission on that date and still fulfil the terms of this Amendment.
We ask him to make such arrangements—and notify them to the House, which he could do in the next two months if he really set about it—and at the end of the period he could start working up to the abolition of the Commission. That is not being dilatory. He can still do it by31st August.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I feel that the right hon. Gentleman does less than justice to his Amendment. I hope he will study it again, and then he will see the clear terms in which it is couched. It says that we shall be unable to make an order until we can certify
that suitable arrangements have been made to ensure the continuance or renewal on fair terms of existing long-term contracts…
both in the case of the Colonial Territories and of other countries.
We could hardly have anything put more plainly than that, and I have made it absolutely plain that we shall not renew contracts. That is the scheme, purpose and policy we have in mind. We shall honour the ones at present before us. That is only right, and I think the whole Committee would agree that we should do so. But, for the future, it is not our

purpose to enter into or renew these long-term contracts, and in those circumstances I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Rhodes: This is one of the more serious aspects of this discussion. I would point out to the President—if I might have his attention, because this is very important—that for two seasons private buyers have had the opportunity of purchasing cotton in any of these places—Uganda, the Sudan, or wherever it is. I put to the President now that there are not enough stocks of Uganda cotton in the hands of private merchants, either in Liverpool or Manchester, to keep Lancashire going for a week. If he likes to refute that, he has the opportunity to do so. He has the figures of cotton stocks, he knows exactly where they are, and he could refute it by the time I have finished my remarks. The Raw Cotton Commission have been doing the purchasing, and were it not for the fact that the Commission were holding stocks of Uganda cotton—

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman will realise that there is not a long-term contract in the case of Uganda.

Mr. Rhodes: That is not the point at all. The right hon. Gentleman has been missing the point all the time—that it is important for Lancashire to have stocks. What we are concerned over is the danger that Lancashire mills will have to close down—and I would say to the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), who is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the President, that he will laugh on the other side of his face in a few minutes.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He speaks with great knowledge, and this is a serious point. But I am dealing with the Amendment, which asks me to certify—

Mr. Rhodes: No—

Mr. Thorneycroft: One moment. The Amendment asks me to certify the
continuance or renewal on fair terms of existing long-term contracts.…
The hon. Gentleman is discussing what will happen in Uganda, where there is no existing contract.

Mr. Rhodes: The President is splitting hairs. He is being pedantic on a narrow, bureaucratic issue—

Mr. Thorneycroft: No.

Mr. Rhodes: Yes. I will explain and try to help him all I can.
The truth is that there are not enough stocks held in this country to keep Lancashire going for more than a week, except those held by the Commission which, by this Bill, he seeks to destroy. The President may refuse the terms in which this Amendment is drawn. He may be able to stand pat on the fact that the long-term contracts cannot be renewed on that basis, and I would be the first to admit that neither this Government nor the Commission can dictate to the Governments of Uganda, or the Sudan, or Nigeria, about how they should market their cotton in the future.
What is happening today is that the Government, in destroying the Commission, are undermining the confidence of the people of those areas, and they are very seriously disturbed. One of the reasons is that before the war it was impossible to tender colonial cottons against futures in Liverpool. Here is an opportunity for the President to save his face in coming months, because this matter will come back to him time and time again. Why does he not, before the Bill becomes an Act, deliberately help the Opposition and Lancashire by insisting, in the first place, that there shall be a contract for colonial cottons in the Liverpool Futures Market? That is what all this really amounts to. If the President would do that, he would do more to restore the confidence of the people of Uganda, the Sudan, Nigeria, Trinidad, Nyasaland, Kenya and Tanganyika than he has done by anything that he has said during the whole of the debates on the Bill.
How will it sound in places like Uganda and the Sudan when it is reported that the President of the Board of Trade has already signified his intention not to have any long-term contracts in future? Imagine the propaganda which could be put out on that basis. Imagine the sort of nationalistic ideas which could be stirred up and spread by that kind of report. Let hon. Members remember what happened in the Sudan before the war. That points to the cause of all the trouble which is looming up in the Sudan. The cause is not so much political as a matter of cotton.
The President is deliberately destroying the Liverpool Cotton Exchange and putting nothing in its place. In 1951 and 1952 we bought the whole of the Sudan crop. We could do with that Sudan crop today. How much have we purchased up till now?—20,000 bales. Twenty thousand were offered about a week ago and they fetched a very high price. Thirty thousand were offered this weak and they were bought by the people in Alexandria. Why?—because, within the last few weeks, the Khartoum market has taken on the mantle of Alexandria in the days of King Farouk.
General Neguib looks alter the interests of the Egyptian cotton merchants and brokers very well. He has prevented the activities of the speculators. Up till now he has prevented the openingof the Alexandria market, but he has done a good job in preventing speculation in cotton in Egypt. But he has not prevented—for all I know, he may be an accessory to the fact—the man who was responsible for the cornering of cotton in Egypt two years ago, when it was 100d. per pound, from continuing the same game at the moment while staying in. a Khartoum hotel.
Why is this man doing that?—because he is gambling on the fact that cotton will no longer be available to Lancashire spinners through the Commission. Let the Minister refute that. Can the President give me any other reason why speculation and gambling is taking place in Khartoum at present? I am sure he cannot find one. Such a man does not step in on an occasion like that unless he has a fair idea of what is happening.

6.45 p.m.

What is happening is that a very small amount of Sudan cotton is available. In fact, the Commission have just issued a notice about it. If the Minister looks at the list of prices he will find "N.Q." against Uganda and all the Sudanese items. The President may smile, but it is very important, because the notice from the Commission states definitely that little cotton of Sudan origin is available except what is already sold on call.

This is a very urgent and important matter because, without any question, it will cause a lot of trouble in the future. Great projects began when in 1919 and 1920 the Lancashire cotton operatives and the Lancashire cotton employers be-


came imbued with the idea that it would be a good thing to develop cotton-growing all over the Empire. The first two great projects were those of the British Cotton Growing Association and the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation. This year the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation propose to spend £80,000 on research alone. Research for what purpose? The development and improvement of cotton-growing in all these areas.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is now going beyond the limits of the Amendment.

Mr. Rhodes: No, Sir Charles. This is fundamental to the problem.
When all is said and done, we in Lancashire have been devoting part of our assets to the improvement of what to many of these areas is the only crop that they can sell. Thus it is important—and I say it is very much in order—to refer to this matter on the Amendment. The President is on a very sticky wicket, and because of that, I ask him to give an undertaking that six months before the beginning of the cotton year—which, according to all the experts, begins on 1st September—he will ensure that there is a colonial cotton futures contract running alongside the American futures contract. If he does not do that, he will be doing a disservice to Lancashire which he and the Government will find will never be forgotten.

Mr. Shepherd: We all admire the fervour of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) on these issues. I and my hon. Friends join him in expressing the hope that within a certain period—I will not be quite as specific as the hon. Member was—there will be a colonial futures contract on the Liverpool market. I believe it is the intention of those who are running the market to obtain such a contract, and I know it is the wish of the Committee that that shall be done.
Hon. Members opposite are in a dilemma on the Amendment. At one moment they were telling the Committee that the Colonies might suffer great harm, and at the next they were telling us that we should not get the supplies of cotton that we want. They must make up their minds. There is a good deal of contradiction in those two viewpoints, and it is important to get the matter clear.
In the first place, it is true that at present the colonial sellers are strong sellers. Is it now the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite that to achieve some commercial advantage we should in some way the up those growers? On the other hand, if they can sell their goods very readily, why should we tie them to a contract?
The position is that colonial growers are strong sellers, and they are not by any means as anxious to tie themselves up as hon. Gentlemen opposite would have us believe. Moreover, if we accept the terms of the Amendment, the Government would be tying themselves up for a further long period. It may well be a good thing in commercial life that one should say to a man from whom one has bought goods for a long time that one will continue to buy from him and give him favourable consideration, but, when we are asking the Government to do this, we are asking them to accept a statutory obligation to renew these contracts. Would it not be commercially unwise to the greatest possible extent to compel a 10-year term for the renewal of the contract? It is a wrong thing to ask any Government to do, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right in taking the view that he could not possibly do it.
I think that all of us want to see the continuity of Empire cotton growing, and I believe that we shall be doing a disservice to Empire cotton growing in putting forward some of the views which have been expressed this afternoon. I think it is very wrong. I will not deny that the bulk purchase arrangements over the last 10 years have played a valiant part in establishing Empire growths where they now are, and I am ready to admit to hon. Gentlemen opposite that it may well be that those growths would not have achieved their present position had it not been for this practice.
These growths are now sought after for their own intrinsic merits and are no longer foisted upon unwilling buyers. That is not the basis upon which colonial and other growths are being sold, but because they have improved immeasureably in the last 10 years. Therefore, there is no need for any sense of inferiority, or for people to take the view that Empire cotton needs to be sold by forcing methods on the part of the Government.

Mr. Rhodes: Is the hon. Gentleman content to go back to what happened before the war, when we were bringing these industries along in the Empire, and when practically all the cotton was being sold in Japan, India and countries like that? Is it not our desire to have mutual trade, and, if they sell cotton to India and Japan, do they not expect Indian and Japanese goods in return? This strikes at the basis of mutual trade.

Mr. Shepherd: I agree that we want mutual trade, but it must be on terms that are mutually acceptable. If I grow Uganda cotton, I should not like to be in the position in which, in my contracting, I had to rely on one market alone. I might consider that the fact that Japan was a second buyerof some substance might react to my commercial advantage.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite must look at these facts from a wider point of view. We do not want to return to the position in which our colonial growers are in any difficulties. As far as contracts are concerned, we now have enough with a long time to run, but if, in the course of two or three years' time, when the picture in cotton has somewhat clarified itself and when markets are more stable, these countries find that they are in difficulties in marketing their crops, it is not beyond the wit of Government to devise means of helping them.
It would be most imprudent of my right hon. Friend to attempt to undertake a statutory obligation to renew contracts which still have four or five years to run, and I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Blackburn: This debate has taken a more serious turn than we anticipated when the Amendment was put down. I do not think that any of us realised that it was the serious intention of the Government not to renew these contracts, in spite of what the President said on Second Reading. Are we now to take it that the Government are abandoning the principle of trying to develop colonial cotton growing and trying to help the Colonies? Have we finished with our balance of payments problem? Is it not still important that we should provide alternative sources of supply?
Whether all hon. Members opposite hold the same views as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) I doubt very

much, but, whatever happens in the Division after this debate, I think it is quite certain that a good many hon. Members opposite share our anxiety about the non-renewal of contracts with the Colonies. In the Second Reading debate, the hon. Member for Garston (Sir V. Raikes) said:
It is when we come to the question of Empire cotton that I, like a number of my hon. Friends, feel a certain anxiety."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 1802.]
We would like to relieve the hon. Gentleman of that anxiety. The only way in which we can be absolutely certain of helping the Colonies to increase their cotton development is by long-term contracts. The hon. and gallant Member for Rochdale (Lieut.-Colonel Schofield), speaking in the same debate, said:
…I happen to be one of those who is a very fervent believer in Empire cotton. I feel sure that Members on both sides of the House will agree about the desirability of growing more cotton in our Colonial Territories."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 1815.]
How are we going to guarantee—

Mr. W. R. Williams: The hon. and gallant Member for Rochdale (Lieut.-Colonel Schofield) went much further than that. He said that there ought to be discussions taking place with the proposed Cotton Exchange in Liverpool with a view to doing exactly what my hon. Friend is now saying.

Mr. Blackburn: I know that the hon. and gallant Member for Rochdale is very keen on the Empire development of cotton, and I think that he ought to go all the way with us and make certain that the present policy is continued. At any rate, we have had a little support from the President of the Board of Trade today. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has gone so far as to say—

Lieut.-Colonel Wentworth Schofield: I have made my views on Empire cotton quite clear in this House from time to time. I have expressed concern that the Liverpool futures contracts should be wholly based upon American growths. I have said that, but I can also say that I understand that the Liverpool Cotton Association have given an undertaking that, within 12 months of starting a Liverpool Cotton Exchange, they will be prepared to discuss the question of bringing Empire cotton into their futures contracts.
They have said that, and I know for a fact that they have given that assurance, but they say that it is necessary to start the market on an American contract. Most of the cotton interests in Lancashire accept that on the understanding that within 12 months they will reconsider the question of bringing colonial cotton into their contracts.

Mr. Blackburn: I do not think that this hypothetical discussion about something some time in the future will satisfy hon. Members on this side of the Committee.

Mr. Rhodes: It will not do in 12 months' time. That will be too late. The crops of Uganda are all wanted in a short period, and not in 12 months. That means to say there will be a gap of 12 months, and the Raw Cotton Commission are not in a position to hold stocks. It will not do.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I was saying, some time in the past before all these interruptions started, that the President of the Board of Trade had admitted this afternoon that there might be something in long-term contracts and in bulk purchase. We are glad to have support from the right hon. Gentleman. We were glad to have support from another right hon. Gentleman on the Government side on 30th January, 1952, when the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), said that there were plans for increasing the production in Uganda by 50 per cent., in Tanganyika by 80 per cent., in Nigeria by about 300 per cent., in Nyasaland by 100 per cent., and in the Aden Protectorate by 60 per cent.
The right hon. Gentleman ended with these words:
Certain colonial producers, namely, Nigeria, Nyasaland and the Aden Protectorate, have entered into long term contracts with the United Kingdom Raw Cotton Commission,"—
these were the important words—
which, by offering a stable market for some years ahead, serve to encourage expansion of production. In addition, advances by the Raw Cotton Commission have been of considerable help in starting irrigated cotton production in the Aden Protectorate."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 175.]

Now we are proposing to abandon the advantage that has been gained by this association with the Raw Cotton Commission in the past.
When the Government went into the question of bringing forward the Bill they did so in a light-hearted way, without having thought out all its implications and its problems, and it was only as the debate went on that they began to realise that here were certain fundamental problems involved. In the Second Reading debate, the President of the Board of Trade, referring to the question of long-term contracts—and here I want to bring back a little of the argument that took place earlier between the President of the Board of Trade and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson)—said:
The existing long-term contracts will, of course, be honoured in so far as the marketing boards wish to retain them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) interrupted and asked:
Does that mean that they are being renewed?
The President replied:
The existing contracts will be retained. I did not say that they would be renewed.
He also did not say that they would not. He went on:
In the long run, it is in everybody's interest that the price in the market should be fixed by the decisions of a free market, directly related to spinning values rather than by the artificial interventions of producing Governments.—OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 1750.]
That might be all right if other matters were not involved. There is the question of the development of alternative sources of supply and of helping our colonial development. Winding up the debate on the same day the Minister of State, Board of Trade, speaking on the honouring of long-term contracts, said:
How it is to be done is being studied at the present time, and I have no reason to believe that it will be beyond the wit of man to devise an arrangement."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 1855.]
It is a great pity that the wit of the Board of Trade had not been equal to devising a scheme before the Bill was brought forward.
It is obvious that when the Government brought forward the Bill they had not worked out anything. In fact, even at the present time, they have no plans for


dealing with these matters, and that is why we want to make certain that before the Raw Cotton Commission is wound up the Government will do the job which they say they will do. In the reply which the Minister of State, Board of Trade, gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton on 17th November, 1953, when my right hon. Friend asked what steps were being taken to ensure the continuance of long-term contracts for the supply of cotton from Colonial and other territories when the Raw Cotton Commission was abolished, the Minister said:
The long-term contracts between the Raw Cotton Commission and Aden, Nigeria and Nyasaland, to which the colonial Administrations attach great importance, will be honoured, and consultations on the methods of doing this will commence shortly.
The Government had a duty not to commence discussions upon an important matter like this after they brought forward the Bill. They should have had in hand the plans to carry out this matter before they presented the Bill. The Minister then went on to say:
It is, obviously, not possible to say with certainty whether there will be any fall in United Kingdom purchases of colonial cotton, but my noble Friend is satisfied that the colonial producers should have no difficulty in finding markets for their cotton if they can produce it competitively."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 139.]
As I said on another occasion, there is another problem involved, the question of colonial development, quite apart from the question of competitive production.
Let me go back briefly to the position in the Colonies at the present time. In the British West Indies it has been the practice of the Raw Cotton Commission to buy the cotton crop before it was planted. In the Annual Report of the Raw Cotton Commission, dated 31st August, 1952, the Commission said:
The Commission followed its usual practice of negotiating for crops before planting.
In the case of Uganda and Tanganyika the President is rather splitting hairs when he suggests that it was not a case of long-term contracts because most of the crop had been taken on bulk purchase. In the case of Nigeria, Nyasaland and Aden the whole of the crop, or at least the exportable surplus, has been bought by the Royal Commission under a long-term agreement.
I should like to refer in particular to the British West Indies and to Uganda because, since the Raw Cotton Commission and private buyers have been existing side by side, there has been a considerable fall in the imports of raw cotton into this country from both the West Indies and Uganda. In the case of the West Indies—

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I do not want to interrupt the non. Gentleman again, but I would point out that the Amendment refers specifically to the continuance or renewal of existing long-term contracts and that there is no long-term contract in the case of the West Indies or in the case of Uganda. It is very difficult to see how I can reply adequately on such a wide front.

Mr. Blackburn: I do not know whether we call it a long-term contract or not when the Raw Cotton Commission have been in the habit year after year of contracting for a crop in the West Indies before the crop has been sown. I do not know whether we are going into the definition of "long-term contract."

Mr. Thorneycroft: The point is whether we are to discuss the winding up of the Raw Cotton Commission, which is a very much wider issue, or an Amendment which refers specifically to the continuance or renewal of existing contracts, when no such contracts exist in those two cases.

Mr. Blackburn: I am not arguing about the winding up of the Raw Cotton Commission, because that has been decided. I am very concerned about the position of the British West Indies and of Sea Island cotton.

The Chairman: I quite see that point, but if there are no contracts to be renewed the hon. Gentleman's argument is not in order on the Amendment.

Mr. Blackburn: Would it not be equivalent to a long-term contract if, year after year, the Raw Cotton Commission have been buying the whole of the West Indian crop before it was sown?

The Chairman: I do not know the terms used in the cotton trade, but I would not consider such a purchase a long-term contract.

Mr. Blackburn: It would be a long-term contract by usage only. I can quite understand why the Government are so anxious that the question of the West Indian trade should not be mentioned, and why the figures should not be brought forward.

The Chairman: It is not a matter of what the Government are or are not anxious about. The point is that when there is an Amendment before us, we must try to keep to the terms of it. If there are no long-term contracts, then there is nothing to be said.

Mr. H. Wilson: On a point of order. Throughout the debates on this Bill one has had to have regard to the interconnection of the supplies of the dollar area, on the one hand, and the non-dollar area on the other, and even if there are no long-term contracts with one particular part of the non-dollar area, surely the fact that the President has told us that he is going to fail to renew long-term contracts with other parts of the dollar area will drive us more into the dollar area and thus affect the basis of West Indian trade.

The Chairman: That is rather a subtle way of trying to do it, but that is not what is on the Order Paper.

Dr. H. Morgan: The West Indian problem is quite a simple one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I merely wanted to correct my hon. Friend.

Mr. Blackburn: I should like to be quite clear about your Ruling, Sir Charles. Are we to take it that, as far as the Colonies are concerned, we are restricted in our comments to Nigeria, Nyasaland and Aden where we have long-term agreements, and that we may not mention Uganda, where we have had bulk purchases for most of its crops, or Tanganyika and the West Indies where we have been buying the crops before they were sown?

The Chairman: We cannot discuss any places where there are no long-term contracts running, because if they are not running they obviously cannot be renewed.

Mr. J. T. Price: With great respect, Sir Charles, I submit that if, in practice, these new territories have been developed under the leadership of the mother

country, in so far as the finance necessary to develop the land is concerned, and that if following that development and coincidental with it these countries have, in fact, been selling the bulk of their products to this country, any fundamental change on the part of the British Government which interferes with their trade is a breach of contract.

The Chairman: The whole point is that unless there is a long-term contract with the places mentioned, they cannot be discussed. It is quite simple.

Dr. Morgan: The problem with regard to the West Indies is quite simple. They have a long-term contract which is renewed from year to year on a definite understanding that it will be renewed, but they still reserve the right not to renew the contract in a bad year when the West Indies have been crippled by storms. Hon. Members do not understand that these islands are in a peculiar position, because they cannot guarantee their crops like the big Colonies on land. They are little islands with the sea all round them, and they can only carry on their cotton trade and renew their contracts on the understanding that they can break the contract in any particular year.

The Chairman: It is rather a difficult point to answer. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that they worked on an understanding. That, surely, is not a contract.

Mr. Price: A contract does not necessarily have to be in writing. Surely we have enough lawyers in the Committee to settle that point.

The Chairman: I am not a lawyer, and perhaps I am wrong on that point, but a promise and a contract seem to me to be rather different things.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I am rather surprised that the President should object in this case, because both he and my right hon. Friend referred to the question of Uganda. I understand that I am now precluded from referring to Uganda because in the case of that territory it was only bulk purchase and not a long-term contract. I would only point out that the collapse of the industry of the West Indies would entail further assistance from Her Majesty's Government in


order to enable the Colony to balance its finances. I should like to have gone more deeply into the question, but, having been ruled out of order on that matter, I will leave it there.
The important aspect of this problem—I think it is a moral aspect—is the duty which we owe to the Colonies to try to help them to develop their economy to the best advantage. If the Raw Cotton Commission is to be wound up and nothing is to take its place, then, I think, we shall be making a very serious mistake.
I maintain that in the Committee upstairs we were led to understand that even if the Raw Cotton Commission were done away with, it would still be possible for the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Materials to continue the work. We were told, in answer to a Question in the House, that the Board of Trade do not make any purchases, and we know that the Ministry of Materials is likely to be wound up as the result of the pressure being brought to bear upon the Prime Minister by his own back benchers.
During the Committee stage, I asked what the position was going to be, and in reply the Minister of State, Board of Trade, said:
I agree with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) that this is an important Clause.…First, I shall deal with one of the hon. Member's last points, with regard to the Ministry of Materials and long-term contracts. If, by any chance, anything happened to the Ministry of Materials, arrangements would be made for the transfer of its obligations so that they could be punctually and punctiliously carried out."—OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 4th February, 1954; c. 472.]
All that we are asking in this Amendment is a guarantee that that undertaking has been carried out. We ask that before the Raw Cotton Commission is woundup adequate steps should toe taken to carry out the functions which the Minister of State, Board of Trade, said would be carried out by some organisation which would be set up if the Ministry of Materials were done away with. In these circumstances, I ask hon. Members to support this Amendment, not only because they believe in giving help to our Colonies, but because to do so would be in the best interests of the Colonies and of the cotton industry as well.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I think that all Members are as one in their concern for the Colonies and for Lancashire. I have been interested as this debate has progressed to note that some of the countries which hon. Members have stated would be very seriously embarrassed if there is no extension of long-term purchase, are not at this moment enjoying such arrangements. Indeed, it seems that those countries are not at this time suffering from any grave difficulty.
To me, there is one very important factor which emerges from this whole question. I am not so sure that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would not, in fact, be doing the greatest possible disservice to Lancashire if they insist upon the continuation of these long-term purchases. To me it seems that when we have a falling market in raw cotton—as it is likely to be in the future, because crop production automatically and almost inevitably increases when there is a comparative shortage—and suddenly the time arrives when we have more raw materials than purchasers, the countries or people who are engaged in long-term purchase, on a rising market, frequently find themselves priced out of the world's markets with the finished product when prices fall.

Mr. Blackburn: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that Lancashire can and is likely to suffer? Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) by "Lancashire"I mean Lancashire and Cheshire. Are we not reaching a crazy state in international finance when Japan has dollars but is short of sterling, and therefore reduces her purchases of American cotton and increases her purchases of Empire cotton; while we, who are short of dollars but have sterling, increase our purchases of American cotton and are reducing our purchases of colonial cotton?

Mr. Burden: That seems to be rather outside the terms of the debate.

Mr. Blackburn: No—

Mr. Burden: I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman.
The point that I am making is a very simple one. If, as a result of long-term contracts, Lancashire is provided with raw cotton at prices higher than those at which Japan can buy on short-term contract


then, indeed, Lancashire will find herself really short of work and there will be thousands of unemployed walking the streets. To me, it seems more evident now than ever before that, with the competition now being thrown upon us by Japan, there is need for this country to buy in the cheapest markets.
There is a very simple law of merchandising in this world, and one impressed upon me very recently. It has a very great bearing on the question of contracts, and why they should not be renewed on a long-term basis unless that basis is so flexible that we are able to take advantage of a falling market. If we are to compete in the world's markets, our finished products must be at the right price, of the right quality and in the right place at the right time. If those requirements are not met, then I am afraid that Lancashire will be priced out of world competition.
I therefore ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they consider this Amendment, to realise the dangers that lie behind it. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to say that—as I have heard the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) say—"We must make sacrifices for the Colonies in order to buy from them," but we should not make those sacrifices when competing in a world in which hon. Members opposite are already complaining of the bad effect upon Lancashire. The only way in which we can continue to combat influences from outside is to ensure that the raw materials that make the finished goods which flow from our factories should at least be as competitive in price as those available to the countries which have lower labour costs than ours.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), in his concern for the area in which he was born and bred, and where he understands the conditions of work so well, should give this matter a little further thought. He made the point—and I would be quite wrong, of course, in labouring it—that there was in Lancashire at this moment only enough Uganda cotton on the market for one week's supply. The rest was in the hands of the Raw Cotton Commission. But the Raw Cotton Commission would, in any case, not be abolished until 31st August. Of course the cotton is there; but there are

alternative sources of supply for that type of cotton, as the hon. Gentleman knows quite well.
I return to my main point. In our consideration of what should or should not not be done for the Colonies in the purchase of their raw materials, one factor that we must remember is that if we are to use their raw materials in the production of finished articles in our factories, if we are to maintain our prestige as a manufacturing country, if we are to retain our markets, and if we are to be able to continue to employ the men in our factories, then the raw materials from the Colonies must be at competitive prices.
If, by long-term contracts, we encourage the Colonies to believe that they can get from us higher prices than from the rest of the world—that they need not, in fact, be competitive—then, indeed, I believe that by such a long-term policy we shall be doing them just as big a disservice as we shall be doing our own industries.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I must give a reason for introducing a Cockney accent into this debate. As hon. Members know, I am a London Member who, in normal circumstances, has no interest in cotton; and in no circumstances can I be regarded as a cotton technician. But I have some information which I think will be of use to the Committee.
I think that we are all united in our desire for the development of the standard of living of the colonial people. I, who have had some bitter experiences of the difficulties of achieving anything positive in that direction without tremendous financial and physical effort, have always regarded the Sudan-Gezira Scheme as being one of the most encouraging examples of the way in which one could have the co-operation of the native producer, the European technician, foreign Governments and ourselves—all working together for the common cause. It is because the Amendment—and this Bill—so materially affects the Sudan-Gezira Scheme that I wish to introduce a few points.
A couple of hours ago I heard the hon. and learned Member for Bolton. East (Mr. Philip Bell) intervene to ask a question about Sudan cotton.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: This Amendment does not affect Sudan cotton at all.

Sir L. Plummer: I say that it does. I am sure the President would not want it to be thought in the Sudan—where we have an acute political problem which has to be handled in the most gentle fashion—that the House of Commons is seeking to prevent a discussion of Sudanese problems today.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The last thing I would wish to do is to curtail discussion about the Sudan or anywhere else, but we must debate the Amendment which is on the Order Paper. I cannot see how this Amendment can affect the Sudan, because it refers to the renewal of existing long-term contracts, and there is no such contract in the case of the Sudan. Any discussion of that very important subject seems to be quite irrelevant to this Amendment.

Mr. Marquand: It is very important that the question of the Sudan should be discussed, and I submit that it is relevant to this Amendment. I have in front of me the Raw Cotton Commission's annual report and statement of accounts for the year ended 31st August, 1952, in which it is stated:
…the Commission, in the autumn of 1951, decided to ensure Lancashire's future requirements of long staple cotton from the Sudan, and a bulk contract was negotiated with the Gezira Board and the Sudan Government for 60 per cent. of their production.
That was the situation in 1952. There was a contract, and contracts had been running year after year. In other words, they were long-term contracts. It may be that no such contract exists with the Sudan at the moment, but my hon. Friend is surely perfectly in order in using the Sudan as an illustration of the danger of ceasing existing long-term contracts, and the very disastrous results of abandoning this particular long-term contract?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): If the long-term contracts axe confined to Nyasaland, Aden and Nigeria and there is no long-term contract with the Sudan, it is not in order to discuss the question of the Sudan under this Amendment.

Mr. H. Wilson: With great respect, Sir Rhys, an attempt is being made by hon. Members opposite to narrow this

debate to an extent far more than is justified. We have had an alarming admission from the President that existing long-term contracts are to be brought to an end, and that will have disastrous effects upon Lancashire. The Amendment before us uses the words "existing long-term contracts." That, presumably, refers to contracts existing when this Bill becomes an Act, which is not likely to happen in the course of the next day or so.
Long-term contracts have been made not only with the Sudan but with other countries and, when they have come to an end, they have been renewed under long-term purchase agreements. It is pure pedantry on the part of the President of the Board of Trade to say that some of them are long-term contracts and some are not. What we have to consider is what the position will be when this Bill becomes law, and anything which may be a long-term contract by that time is relevant to our discussion.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am bound by the terms of the Amendment, which deals with existing long-term contracts and, as I understand it, there are no such contracts with the Sudan. I am not concerned with what may be the position hereafter.

Mr. Marquand: I do not think that you have quite appreciated the point which I put to you, Sir Rhys. We are not arguing that Sudan long-term contracts ought not to be discontinued, but that the reason why we ought not to break our existing contracts with Aden and other places is that the same sort of bad results will follow as have followed in the past from ceasing to have long-term contracts with the Sudan. The Sudan is being used in the normal way as an illustration of the evil which might arise in the future, and we have to use what has occurred in the past as an illustration.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the Sudan is used as an illustration, that is all right, but the Minister's argument is that the contracts with the Sudan are renewable year by year. They are not long-term contracts within the terms of this Amendment.

Sir L. Plummer: I submit, Sir Rhys, that it is your desire that all hon. Members should be treated alike. This afternoon we have heard an impassioned


speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) in connection with Sudan cotton coming into this country, its disposition, and its effect on the market. References to Sudan Cotton were made by the President himself before we had any Ruling from the Chair. Is it argued now that because a contract is not in existence at this moment—at 25 minutes to eight tonight—I am to be treated differently from other hon. Members?

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot say anything about that. I am looking only at the terms of the Amendment. The debate must be conducted within the terms of the existing long-term contracts.

Mr. Keenan: It is true that the Amendment can be narrowly determined, as it has been by you, Sir Rhys, but is it not being moved as an addition to an existing Clause which it is competent to discuss? It seeks to insert a proviso to Clause 4 (1), which says that:
The Board and the Minister…may by order jointly provide for the winding up and dissolution of the Commission.…
Surely the effect of that subsection is being conditioned by the words we seek to add, and it does permit a discussion of whatever arrangements the present Commission is concerned with?

The Deputy-Chairman: That argument goes very much wider than the terms of the Amendment.

Sir L. Plummer: A contract the terms of which are negotiated each year can still be a long-term contract. My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough. East (Mr. Marquand) has made it quite clear that we did have a long-term contract with the Sudan Gezira Board.

Mr. Thorneycroft: There was no long-term contract.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not know with which countries we have long-term contracts. All I am saying is that we can discuss only those countries with which we have those contracts.

Sir L. Plummer: The last thing I want to do is to disagree with you, Sir Rhys. I therefore reserve my rights for the future, and I shall hope to catch your eye on another occasion.

Mr. Philip Bell: I want to say a few words on this subject, because I come from Lancashire and because Bolton is concerned mostly with fine spinning. In the last few minutes we have had a salutary lesson on the necessity of keeping within the rules of order, and I cannot enter into the controversies about bulk buying and free purchasing which were canvassed rather happily for some time earlier, nor can I deal with the many other arguments which seem to have gone a long way from this Amendment.
This Amendment does not help the position in any way. It is an indirect attempt to say, "Although we have already accepted the principle of abolishing the Raw Cotton Commission, we are putting down this Amendment to stop that principle being carried out."Not only that; this Amendment does not remove what I believe to be the real anxiety of many hon. Members representing Lancashire constituencies. The real anxiety of Lancashire—certainly, in the fine spinning areas—is the position of stocks.
I am not satisfied that this Amendment, by merely suggesting the renewal or continuance of contracts, will meet the difficulties which some of us apprehend, which is that when the Raw Cotton Commission ceases to buy there may not be sufficient stocks in the country. I am told that 60 per cent. of the fine spinning trade contracted in and did their buying through the Raw Cotton Commission. The fine spinning areas are particularly anxious that we should have an adequate supply of cotton, for two reasons.
The first reason is a strategic one. We can never afford to be without a large amount of fine cotton, not merely on contract, but in the country. Also, we must facilitate employment and avoid the time lag by carrying large stocks. It seems clear that the stocks are temporarily run down for some reason. I should like the Minister to satisfy parts of Lancashire which are most anxious—

The Deputy-Chairman: It seems to me that the hon. and learned Member's argument would be more fitting on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," than on this Amendment.

Mr. Bell: The Amendment deals with the business of trying to protect stocks by renewing or continuing contracts. I


suggest that it is an unnecessary provision to insert because of the existing words of the Clause, which say:
The Board and the Minister, if at any time they are satisfied that it is in the public interest…
may wind up the Commission.
That suggests to me that the public interest gives them a very wide discretion. They need not wind up the Commission, and if they are not winding it up they can continue it, not necessarily in the limited way suggested in the Amendment but in some other way, by buying stocks, which would safeguard the public interest and the Commission.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Member is clearly out of order.

Mr. W. T. Proctor: We have had a most interesting suggestion from the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) that the Commission should be continued in some way. That is a very valuable suggestion. Whether or not it was in order, I am not certain.

Mr. Philip Bell: Not continued indefinitely, but until we are certain of the stock position.

Mr. Proctor: Until the interests of the countrydecide that it should not be continued. We on this side would agree with that.
Tonight, we are discussing a point on the question of bulk purchase and long-term contracts. The pioneers of this policy sit on the opposite side of the Committee. It was they who started it. It was they who brought it into being for the Commonwealth. It has proved most advantageous, because the Labour Government during the whole of their period of office continued the policy. It developed a two-way trade that was most valuable.
I am sorry to see hon. Gentlemen opposite running away from the policy just when we might need it most of all. The President of the Board of Trade was most concerned lest the Amendment should wreck the whole object of the Bill. We have been under a great difficulty, not knowing what the object of the Bill is, although we have discussed it at great length in Standing Committee. I suggest that the object is to carry out the reckless promise made by the Prime

Minister to reopen the Liverpool Cotton Exchange. I appeal to the Government. We know that the Amendment is drawn very narrowly but they have other opportunities to change the wording and to accept the spirit which is behind the Amendment. That spirit is that we should continue the two-way trade with the Commonwealth.
I am astounded at the admissions made by the President of the Board of Trade. He has said that he desires these contracts to end and that he is making no provision whatever for their renewal. That is a terrible admission for him to make. Also, we have had another admission from hon. Gentlemen opposite. From this side of the Committee we can see the influence which is being brought to bear on Members from Lancashire not to speak on these issues. We observe Members who sit on the Front Bench walking round to those who indicate a desire to speak and having a conversation with them. I say that we ought to hear what Tory Members from Lancashire have to say.

The Deputy-Chairman: That certainly has nothing to do with the Amendment.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Proctor: I leave that point, Sir Rhys.
There was another admission. I refer to the hon. Member who spoke about what will happen when the Exchange is reopened. He said that it is to deal exclusively with American cotton for the first 12 months and then he said, "They have given the definite promise that at the end of 12 months they are willing to discuss the arrangements that would put Empire cotton on the same basis as American cotton."
The Government ought to reconsider the whole problem. The Amendment gives them an opportunity to go back, to recast their policy and to consider whether it is in the public interest. I am certain that on impartial consideration they would abandon the Bill as one which is detrimental to the interests of the country and of the Commonwealth. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to try to get authority to do the right thing by the cotton industry and to continue this piece of machinery which may be needed far more in future because of what has happened recently in connection with Japanese trade. We shall lose the two-way


traffic where the bulk and long-term contracts are in existence today if the policy of the Government is carried to fruition.

Mr. Keenan: I tried earlier, Sir Rhys, to persuade you to see the position rather differently so that we could have a wider discussion of the topics which we consider to be within the ambit of either the Clause or the Amendment. The Amendment, which would be an addendum to the Clause, provides for a three months' extension. The President of the Board of Trade said that there were only three firm long-term contracts and we wished to put certain matters before him but we were not allowed to develop the argument.
It is desirable that we should be in a position to look at the matter. If there is no such provision in the Bill, the President may be badly advised again. What happened that caused us much concern was that the Commission acted without the knowledge of the President. It did something which he knew nothing about. Is not it conceivable that that might happen again if the Amendment is not accepted? Is not it desirable that we should have some check to see

whether the President or the Minister of Materials are aware of what is going on? That is most desirable.

Apart from any other consideration, the additional three months might cushion some of the difficulties about which the industry is apprehensive. Some of my hon. Friends who more directly represent workers in the industry know more about this matter than I claim to know. My interest is largely that of one interested in shipping and in exports and imports. If Lancashire suffers then Liverpool suffers, because it will not have to deal with the imports and exports, and those with whom I have been associated all my life will also suffer.

One hon. Gentleman opposite realised that the rigid application of the Bill, with the closing of the Commission at the earliest possible moment, means not only that long-term contracts will not be renewed but that the supply position generally will be prejudiced. I suggest that the Amendment would provide a breathing space, and I hope that it will be carried.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 245; Noes, 261.

Division No. 36.]
AYES
[7 50 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Coldrick, W.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Adams, Richard
Collick, P. H.
Grey, C. F.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Cove, W. G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Awbery, S. S.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hamilton, W. W.


Balfour, A.
Daines, P.
Hannan, W.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hargreaves, A.


Bartley, P.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Harrison, J (Nottingham, E.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hastings, S.


Bence, C. R.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hayman, F. H.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Deer, G.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Benson, G.
Delargy, H. J.
Herbison, Miss M.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Dodds, N. N.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Blackburn, F.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hobson, C. R.


Blenkinsop, A.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Holman, P.


Blyton, W. R.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Houghton, Douglas


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Edelman, M.
Hoy, J. H.


Bowden, H. W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hubbard, T. F.


Bowles, F. G.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Brockway, A. F.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Broughton, Dr A. D. D.
Fienburgh, W.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Finch, H. J.
Irvine, A J. (Edge Hill)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Burke, W. A.
Follick, M.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Foot, M. M.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Forman, J. C.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Callaghan, L. J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Carmichael, J.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Cattle, Mrs. B. A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Champion, A. J.
Gibson, C. W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Chapman, W. D.
Gooch, E. G.
Keenan, W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Kenyon, C.


Glunie, J.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.




King, Dr. H. M.
Parker, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pearson, A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Popplewell, E.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Lewis, Arthur
Porter, G.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Lindgren, G. S.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Logan, D. G.
Proctor, W. T.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


MacColl, J. E.
Pryde, D. J.
Thornton, E.


McGhee, H. G.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Timmons, J.


McGovern, J.
Rankin, John
Tomney, F.


McInnes, J.
Reeves, J.
Turner-Samuels, M.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


McLeavy, F.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Usborne, H. C.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Rhodes, H.
Viant, S. P.


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Richards, R.
Wallace, H. W.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Warbey, W. N.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Watkins, T. E.


Manuel, A. C.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Weitzman, D.


Mason, Roy
Ross, William
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Mayhew, C. P.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Mellish, R. J.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
West, D. G.


Messer, Sir F.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mitchison, G. R.
Short, E. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Monslow, W.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wigg, George


Morley, R.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wilcock Group Capt. C. A. B.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Skeffington, A. M.
Wilkins, W. A.


Mort, D. L.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Willey, F. T.


Moyle, A.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Williams, David (Neath)


Murray, J. D.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Nally, W.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Snow, J. W.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


O'Brien, T.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Oldfield, W. H.
Sparks, J. A.
Winterbottom, Rt Richard (Brightside)


Oliver, G. H.
Steele, T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Oswald, T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wyatt, W. L.


Padley, W. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Yates, V. F.


Paget, R. T.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)



Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Stross, Dr. Barnett
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Pannell, Charles
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Mr. Royle and Mr. Holmes.


Pargiter, G. A.
Swingler, S. T.





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Burden, F. F. A.
Fell, A.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Finlay, Graeme


Alport, C. J. M.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Fisher, Nigel


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Campbell, Sir David
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Carr, Robert
Fletcher, Sir Walter (Bury)


Arbuthnot, John
Cary, Sir Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Channon, H.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Fort, R.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Foster, John


Banks, Col. C.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Barber, Anthony
Cole, Norman
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Barlow, Sir John
Colegate, W. A.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Baxter, A. B.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Glover, D.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Godber, J. B.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Crouch, R. F.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Birch, Nigel
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Gough, C. F. H.


Bishop, F. P.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Gower, H. R.


Black, C. W.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Graham, Sir Fergus


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Bowen, E. R.
Deedes, W. F.
Grimond, J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Braine, B. R.
Donner, Sir P. W.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harden, J. R. E.


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Douglas Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Drayson, G. B.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Drewe, Sir C.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Duthie, W. S.
Hay, John


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Heath, Edward


Bullard, D. G.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Erroll, F. J.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)







Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Hollis, M. C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Scott, R. Donald


Holt, A. F.
Marples, A. E.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Hope, Lord John
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Shepherd, William


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Maude, Angus
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Horobin, I. M.
Maudling, R.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Snadden, W. McN.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Mellor, Sir John
Speir, R. M.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Molson, A. H. E.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Stevens, G. P.


Hurd, A. R.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Storey, S.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Neave, Airey
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Nicholls, Harmer
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Iremonger, T. L.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Summers, G. S.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Jennings, Sir Roland
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Teeling, W.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Kaberry, D.
Oakshott, H. D.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Kerr, H. W.
Odey, G. W.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Lambert, Hon. G.
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Leather, E. H. C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Lindsay, Martin
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Osborne, C.
Turton, R. H.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Page, R. G.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Perkins, Sir Robert
Vesper, D. F.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Wade, D. W.


Longden, Gilbert
Peyton, J. W. W.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


McAdden, S. J.
Powell, J. Enoch
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


McCallum, Major D.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wellwood, W.


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Raikes, Sir Victor
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


McKibbin, A. J.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Remnant, Hon. P.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Renton, D. L. M.
Wills, G.


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Robertson, Sir David
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Robson-Brown, W.
Wall, P. H. B.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)



Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Russell, R. S.
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Redmayne.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, to leave out from "Minister," to "jointly,"in line 14, and to insert:
 "after consultation with the Treasury, shall.
In Committee I accepted one of those Amendments which turns "may" into "shall."I do not say that it made any great difference to the Bill, but it made it mandatory rather than permissive upon the Commission to give compensation. Clause 3 dealt only with compensation that was paid before the winding-up. Clause 4 deals with compensation which is paid after the winding-up, and I gave a pledge in Committee to introduce appropriate words to bring this Clause into line with Clause 3, and to make it mandatory in both cases. This Amendment honours that pledge.

Mr. Marquand: If we had known then what we know now about the passionate anxiety of the Raw Cotton Commission to pay compensation as fast as possible, perhaps we would not have put an Amendment on the Order Paper, but we were grateful to the President of the Board of Trade for his promise then, and we accept the Amendment with pleasure now.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 19, at end, insert:
and who satisfy such conditions in respect of their service with the Commission as may be specified in the directions."—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Marquand: I do not think that we should allow this very important Clause to go without some further examination. Here is a Clause which, after the rest of the Bill has stripped the Raw Cotton Commission of many of their previous powers and obligations, provides for the eventual dissolution of the Commission, but between now and that time, the Commission remain in being. It is, therefore, very important indeed that the Committee should consider the way in which the Commission shall eventually cease to exist and the criteria which shall determine the time at which they shall cease to exist.
The Clause says:
The Board and the Minister, if at any time they are satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so,…
The rest is consequential. There are some points, no doubt, in the consequences, but nothing in this Clause is more important than the governing words that the Board and the Minister must be satisfied that it is in the public interest to bring the Commission to an end.
Let us consider these words, "in the public interest," very carefully, because this Bill has been treated a great deal by the Press and, I think, by some hon. Members of this House as if it concerned Lancashire only. It does concern Lancashire very vitally indeed. It affects Lancashire's principal industry and affects it, in our opinion, very adversely, but it is a Bill which affects the economic state of the whole country, and not only of this country but of other countries as well.
It was very fitting that my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), at an earlier stage in our proceedings, caught your eye, Sir Rhys, and referred to the fact that he was not a Lancashire Member. Neither am I, but it is right that the voice of the rest of Britain should be heard in connection with this Bill because it does and it will affect the whole of the United Kingdom.
It so happens that this great industry is centred almost entirely in the county of Lancashire, but it is one of the principal industries of Great Britain, and what happens to Lancashire affects all the rest of us. It not only affects all the rest of us, but the prevalence of unemployment in Lancashire might mean the beginning of a depression, which

would undoubtedly affect the steel workers whom I have the honour to represent in Middlesbrough; and, more than that, it would affect our fellow citizens in the United Kingdom and in the Colonies which produce the cotton that Lancashire consumes.
It would affect the steelworkers of Middlesbrough even more quickly through that channel than it would through the first channel of unemployment, because if these countries which supplyus with cotton were to find difficulty in continuing to sell us cotton, their ability to buy the steel rails and other products of Middlesbrough's exporting industries would be very seriously impaired. We all have a common interest in this matter. It is apublic interest, and we want to examine tonight what that public interest is; what criteria the Minister and the Board can bring to bear in deciding when it is in the public interest to finish this Commission altogether.
I wish that we had with us this evening the advantage of the presence of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He would have a double interest in this matter, because in 1947, when I introduced the original Bill, he led the Opposition throughout all stages of the Bill's consideration. He, therefore, knows a great deal about the Bill itself and the structure of the Raw Cotton Commission.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Whose Bill is it? Look at the empty benches opposite.

Mr. W. R. Williams: We can understand the argument of my right hon. Friend that this affects other parts of the country. There is no doubt that that is correct, but one would have thought, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree with me, that it would have interested some of the Tory Members from Lancashire sufficiently for them to have had at least one of their Members present.

Mr. Rhodes: On a point of order. May I draw attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present, Sir Rhys?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, to do so now would be out of order.

Mr. Marquand: Whatever time of the evening it may be, there is a conspicuous emptiness on the benches opposite which certainly deserves to be noticed in the way it has been.
I was saying that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has a special responsibility here although, of course, I do not complain about his personal inability to be present, because it may be that he has other matters directly calling for his attention. We know only too well the difficulties with which he is faced in so many of the Colonies at the present time. It is a pity, nevertheless, that he could not have been here to hear the cogent arguments which were advanced earlier this evening about the great public interest of the Colonies in the continued existence of even a truncated and attenuated Commission.
It will be remembered that the President of the Board of Trade caused consternation in the House, and will, I think, cause consternation among large sections of opinion in the Colonies, by his announcement tonight that, although there are arguments for long-term bulk purchase—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) come in, because I had thought of referring for a moment to some of the things he said.
The President's deliberate announcement tonight that "I have made it absolutely clear that we are not renewing these long-term contracts" will cause consternation in many of the Colonies, not only those which may at the moment have long-term contracts and bulk purchase arrangements, but those which have had them in the past and who hope to have them in the future.
The hon. Member for Cheadle sought to argue that these long-term contracts had often been quite useful in the past and were all right to help an infant industry growing up in a Colony, but that they had no special value at present and were no longer necessary. There is certainly no intention on this side of the House to force cotton producers in Uganda, for example, to sell their cotton in bulk under long-term contracts to the United Kingdom.
We do not want to exploit our Colonies. If they feel that it is to their advantage and in their public interest to sell in some other way, well and good. But we do not want to take away, in the manner that the right hon. Gentleman is doing, the opportunity for Uganda to sell in that way again if it wishes to do so, or for

the Sudan, Aden, the West Indian Sea Islands, and all the others who at present do it. The value of long-term contracts in the past is not denied by anybody to night. We say that those existing contracts ought not to be determined, because they are still of value, and a situation ought not to be created in which nobody in this country is able to resume long-term contracts in the future if the colonial producers desire to have them.
We have to ask ourselves what the President and the Minister of Materials are likely to judge to be the public interest in regard to the dissolution of the Commission. One example which we have had already leads us to believe that they will judge the public interest absolutely wrongly and that they will fail to take into account the public interest in that wide sense that I have described it, the interest of the whole of the United Kingdom and of overseas producers for whom the United Kingdom has had some responsibility in other countries.
The outstanding example is the story of the Sudan. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), in the first meeting of the Committee upstairs, predicted that great difficulties would occur in obtaining for Lancashire spinners who use Sudan cotton sufficient supplies of that cotton now that the Commission was being dismantled. He predicted that that would happen, and our prediction, unfortunately, came true all too soon.
We felt that that might happen, and on 3rd December my right hon. Friend asked the Minister of State, Board of Trade, a Question:
what arrangements he is making for the purchase of Sudan and Peruvian cotton…for the 1954 season.
The reply said, among other things:
The Raw Cotton Commission…will make purchases from the 1954 Sudanese and Peruvian crops sufficient to meet any requirements of contractors-in until the 1955 crops become available…"—OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1953; Vol, 521, c. 173.]
That was the promise—that there would be "sufficient to meet any requirements.

8.15 p.m.

Again, in our sitting upstairs on Thursday, 3rd December, the President of the Board of Trade said:
steps are being taken in the Commission to see that adequate stocks of Sudanese cotton


are held to tide over the transition period between public and private buying."—OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 3rd December, 1953; c. 35.]
That was the promise that was definitely made. But yesterday we were astounded to read, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) as to whether the Minister of State
is aware that at the recent sale of Sudan cotton the whole of the cotton offered was bought up by the Egyptian merchants at prices which the Liverpool buyers would not pay,
the answer by the right hon. Gentleman that
I understand that most of the comparatively small quantity of cotton offered at the recent auction in Khartoum was bought by export merchants who are resident in Egypt. Several of these firms are now offering the same cotton for re-sale to importers in Europe, including the United Kingdom. The Raw Cotton Commission and other United Kingdom importers are free to buy Sudanese cotton as they think fit, and my noble Friend is not prepared to advise them on the exercise of their commercial judgment."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1954; Vol. 523, c. 198–9.]

In December, therefore, we had the solemn and definite promise that the Sudanese and Peruvian cotton would be bought in sufficient quantity to tide the merchants over. In February, however, we are told, "We did not go in there. We did not buy this particular cotton. Of course, we had no kind of contract or agreement remaining, and we could not get hold of it. Now, these fellows have bought it up and are offering it at excessive prices. I do not know what can be done, but we can leave our importers to exercise their commercial judgment."

What a way to fulfil a promise to see that adequate stocks are provided. What an example of careless treatment of a vital Lancashire industry to set before the House. That is the sort of criterion which will be brought to bear by the Minister of Materials and the President of the Board of Trade when they come to exercise their duty to consider the public interest, as is provided under the Clause.

That, of course, is only one side of the story. I am not suggesting that the sole purpose of the existence of the Commission and its sole duty in the few months of life that remain to it should be to look after the interests of colonial or other overseas producers—not at all.

It is a two-way traffic; the interdependence is complete. One of the most important features of the whole situation is that many of the contractors-in who have remained faithful to the Commission are the very spinners who need these types of cotton—the types of cotton produced in Uganda, Nigeria, the West Indies, or wherever it may be, and in the Sudan, in particular.

It is that kind of spinner—a specialist very often, I believe, but I do not claim technical knowledge—who has remained loyal to the Commission, who wants the Commission to continue, and whose voice we heard for a moment or two from an hon. Member on the benches opposite, who is not at the moment present and whose constituency, unfortunately, I do not know

Mr. Lee: My right hon. Friend means the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell).

Mr. J. T. Price: He has a "rocky" seat.

Mr. Marquand: I do not wish to say that his anxiety to see that cotton was preserved for Bolton was due solely to his anxiety about maintaining his seat. I feel sure that he spoke sincerely in pointing out to the House the dangers of the present situation.
The case which we advance is that the Raw Cotton Commission ought to be kept in being for the special needs of this particular type of producer. We should have liked to see the whole of the Commission kept in existence, as laid down with thought and care in the original Act. But we accept that at this stage of the Bill that cannot now be done, and that the Commission must be stripped of some of its functions. We say that even that part which still remains ought now to be kept in existence, and ought not to be brought to an end by a decision of Ministers at any time they may think fit.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton has said, we have seen again and again that Ministers are not prepared to consider the public interest at all, because they have already made up their minds. They already decided months ago before they knew what the circumstances could possibly be that they were going to bring the Commission to an end, probably this year. That is not


the way in which serious responsible Ministers, entrusted by Parliament with great powers and great responsibilities for the public welfare, should decide what the public interest is.
We have had many examples of the careless, haphazard way in which the whole business of the supply of raw cotton for Lancashire has been handled, and we have had few displays of real interest about continuing to have regard to the welfare of our colonial producers of cotton. So little indication have we had of the proper understanding of the needs of the small spinners and specialist spinners who use the fine cotton produced in the Sudan and elsewhere that we have no confidence whatever in the ability of Her Majesty's Ministers to judge the public interest in the proper way. Therefore, we oppose the inclusion of this Clause in the Bill.

Sir L. Plummer: As I was saying before, all of us in this Committee are united in our desire to see that schemes for the economic development of the Colonies shall succeed, and because of the experience that I have had of line extreme difficulty of these schemes establishing themselves within a reasonable space of time I had begun to discuss the Sudan Gezira Scheme, which I have described as being the most promising and encouraging of all schemes that have been introduced, because it has a proper admixture of Government technicians, native producers and all the rest of it. I hope that I shall now be able to give the Committee some assistance and some information on its value, arising out of the information that I have had from the Sudan itself.
I ought to make it clear that the importance of Sudan cotton, apart from its importance to the Sudanese, is very great to Lancashire. The hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) expressed to me his regret that he had to go. After what he said to me it was quite clear that if he had heard my speech he would have had a different view and would have made an entirely different speech. He was concerned about the situation which was going to arise when Sudan cotton does not arrive any more. That concerns all of us. More than half the long staple cotton used in Lancashire today comes

from the Sudan. In 1950–51, 38 per cent. of it was used, but in the year 1952–53 75 per cent. was used.
One thing that Lancashire must have is Sudanese cotton, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) put the point with great vehemence, sincerity and conviction that it is absolutely necessary for the Sudan to be able to sell this cotton in an orderly manner. People whoare running the Gezira scheme do not want to have to go round gambling on the markets for the sale of their cotton. They are engaged in long-term schemes and continuing where the famous Arthur Gaitskell left off in the provision of social services, houses, roads and all the rest of the things which are necessary. We must listen to these people.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was putting the case for the producers in the Colonies and overseas who wanted a continuance of the conditions and facilities provided by the Cotton Commission, his arguments were treated as though they were dubious. In view of that I think it would be right and proper if I were to read, with his permission, extracts from a letter sent to me by Mr. George W. Raby,the Chairman and Managing Director of the Sudan Gezira Board, which comes from Barakat in the Blue Nile Province of the Sudan.
Mr. Raby is well known to many people as an organiser and engineer of some considerable skill and experience, I might tell the Committee that he is not a Socialist. That is one quality in which he is lacking, otherwise he is an invaluable public servant, and he has proved it in the past. This is what he says:
(1) There is not a bale of cotton in stock in Lancashire other than the R.C.C. holding.
That confirms what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne.
(2) The Liverpool Exchange cannot hope to become a stable entity and provide a sufficient hedge for long staple cottons—such as the Sudans and Egyptians—for at least 18 months and possibly longer.
 (3) The larger consumers may be wealthy enough to be able to find the money to buy in reasonable stocks, but how are the small users to finance such stocks? Any borrowing of money would have to be at a low rate of interest otherwise they will be put out of business.
(4) Closing down the R.C.C. so quickly leaves Lancashire with no intermediate Agency,


for all the old Cotton brokers who used to look after their individual clients' supplies have long since disappeared, with the result that everyone is dependent on the Exporter-Importer merchants who would have no particular fancy for the Lancashire Raw Cotton trade if better prices could be obtained elsewhere in the world.
I think the most telling argument is that henceforth many small and medium sized fine-spinners will have to finance their stocks with money at present allocated for machinery improvement and replacements, and you can get confirmation of this from a friend of mine." 
He then gives the name of this particular friend. He goes on to give me some more information which he asks me not to disclose because he thinks it would help us on this side of the Committee rather than those on the other side of the Committee. Above all, Mr. Raby wants to be impartial.

8.30 p.m.

Here is a man who, in his earnestness to be heard by the ear of this House, sends me at the same time a letter from Messrs. Crosses and Heatons, Limited, Chorley New Road, Bolton. Bolton comes into this rather as Denmark comes into Hamlet. This is clearly the concern of Bolton. This is what this firm, Crosses and Heatons, Limited, wrote on 21st December last year, to the Director of the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners' Associations Limited—

The transitional period from the R.C.C. to free buying is bound to entail some risk, but in our opinion these risks should be reasonable ones and it would be to everyone's benefit to see the change over made as smoothly as possible. To have this transitionary period for Group II cottons too short can only be disastrous.

Sudanese cottons are included in this classification.
We should like to see the life of the R.C.C. Merchanting Sections and merchanting facilities extended for at least twelve months or until such time as it is possible to open a 'long staple' futures contract…

The chairman and managing director of the Sudan Gezira Board says to this House through me that what we must have over the next 18 months is a planned and orderly purchase of the product that he is producing under difficult conditions for really important and serious ends. His letter, coming from such an expert, and written without prejudice or bias, is my justification for intervening in this debate. I commend the letter to the Committee.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: Now that we have finished with the count, Sir Rhys, I rise to address the Committee on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
I want to express my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. H. Rhodes) for drawing an audience, however temporary, including at least one Lancashire Conservative Member. The small attendance of hon. Gentlemen opposite is rather disappointing in view of the fact that the discussion on this Clause in Committee upstairs was a somewhat circumscribed one; indeed, the Government would not have got the Clause if it had not been for the co operation of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee.
I wish to follow what my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) has said on a matter of profound importance to this country, to Lancashire and, indeed, to the world. It is a fact that despite the educative progress which has gone on throughout the Committee stage, as a result of which I assume that the Minister of State, Board of Trade, anyway has learnt something, the Government are still unaware of the consequences of the action which is envisaged in this Clause. We have already had an account of how they will affect Lancashire spinners, and I want to look at the potential effect on the lives of some of the workers in places like Preston and Bolton, whose anxiety as to the future has been continuously and repeatedly increased, and whose confidence has been repeatedly shaken by the action of this Government.
I do not need to refer in detail to the recent Japanese Agreement, but I shall deal with two or three points which even now have not yet been answered by the Government, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us some answer. First, how are these spinners who have not the capital available to finance their stocks going to manage? It is still one of the great delusions of the Government, and indeed of much of the industry, that


finance is available, largely because it is available to those who are in a strong position. It is not available to those who are in a weak position.
It is very often not available for important exports. The chance of the finance not being available without those concerned having to draw on other capital which may be available and other resources which they should be using at this moment to increase their competitive efficiency, will weaken Lancashire. I hope that the Minister will have a word to say on the stock position.
There is a more serious angle to the stock position, which was mentioned in another context by, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle). [An Hon. Member: "It cannot be West."] No, because the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) is not here. He is rarely with us. It is with regard to the limited supplies of raw materials where a quota scheme may be enforced or some restriction may exist.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not quite see how the hon. Member is relating that to the provisions of this Clause.

Mr. Shackleton: Indeed, it is very relevant to the Clause because I am coming to the question of whether it is wise at the moment to allow this Clause to stand part of the Bill. The argument which I am deploying is in relation to the possibility of a shortage of imported raw materials for the Lancashire cotton industry resulting from the closing down of the Raw Cotton Commission.
Repeatedly, throughout our discussions in Committee, we have been watching the progress of economic forces in the world and the increasing dangers of an American slump. Throughout the whole of this period we have been regaled with soft stories of how this slump would never come, but we have heard in recent days that the down-turn in American production is as high as 10 per cent. Even the American Government are talking seriously about a slump in America. If that should come the effect on this country's dollar situation may be very serious. It is at this very moment, when we may have the greatest difficulty in buying our raw cotton supplies, that we may be without the essential organisation to buy and

distribute it. And we know only too well how unsatisfactorily quota schemes are being worked in the few sections of industry where they apply today.
I do not believe that small spinners and others in Lancashire would have the confidence in the Liverpool cotton merchants to believe that they would have a fair deal. They certainly would not have the confidence in them which they had in the Raw Cotton Commission. It is at this moment that this Government, despite these warnings, are persevering in their decision to close the Raw Cotton Commission. It is extremely difficult to see how they can justify that at a moment like this.
We have already had many arguments about the effect abroad. I can only conclude that hon. Members opposite are so fascinated by the operation of the commodity markets that they sit looking at the Liverpool Exchange like a man who tries to invent a perpetual motion machine and believes that it is a valuable thing. They take the ingenuity and exciting quality of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange as something of validity and value. But Lancashire is not interested in that. Lancashire wants cotton for the operatives in the mills.
This Clause is the one Clause which will continue to spread alarm and anxiety about the future in Lancashire. Even at this late stage I ask the Minister to consider some of the arguments which have been put forward from this side of the Committee and to give an answer to the question of how, in the event of a serious economic recession, he hopes to provide raw cotton equitably for the workers in Lancashire.

Mr. Rhodes: I want to make my second appeal to the Minister of State, Board of Trade, this evening. I can do it quite well on this Motion. It is that in respect of those members of the spinning industry with unit mills who have been relying on the Raw Cotton Commission to get cotton for them. Between now and the time it is decided to make an order, whenever that may be, it should be made clear to those mills that their supplies will be assured.
We have already discussed the question of purchases in Uganda and elsewhere. Spinners have not exercised the option to buy for themselves in certain markets


—the Sudan and Uganda—as has been proved by the letter from Mr. Raby, the head of the Gezira Board. The liquidation of the Raw Cotton Commission some time during the next 12 months will spell disaster, as I have pointed out repeatedly to the Committee, to those unit mills relying on the Commission for their supplies of cotton.
Is it not ridiculous that the very people who have been agitating for the removal of the Commission so that they can get back to the pre-war system of buying in the open market, have not even exercised the privilege of purchasing, so much so that at present—after two seasons with the opportunity to purchase privately—they have not got the stocks, but the Raw Cotton Commission have stocks?
Surely it is not common sense, nor is it just, to say that those firms which have remained loyal to the Commission and by conviction and also through expediency have continued to buy from the Commission should suddenly be jettisoned and thrown overboard without any regard for their future. That is about to happen. For the sake of their reputation, I appeal to the Minister tonight to take this point very seriously and consider it with the point I made about economic colonial cottons in the futures contracts. He will find that this will pay handsome dividends, and hon. Members opposite like that. I implore him tonight to take that point because it will stand him in good stead in the months and years to come.

Mr. Shepherd: I want to say a word or two on the points which have been made by hon. Members opposite, to which I have listened with great attention. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) is pursuing a path on the question of financial responsibility parallel to the path he pursued on the question of the grower. Let us face the fact that on the two sides of the Committee we are diametrically opposed in our purposes. Our view on this side of the Committee is—I state it without hesitation—that as far as possible we want the ordinary interplay of economic forces to run business.

8.45 p.m.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite believe that business cannot be run without "mothering" and "marming." We do not agree.

Even if there were any question of the ability of mills to purchase their stocks, the hon. Member is guilty of gross exaggeration. If he and I could have a confidential talk about those firms in the Lancashire textile industry, the spinners, who could not afford to buy the stocks required, how many would we find?

Mr. Shackleton: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Shepherd: No. Let me pursue this.
If we say we would find four or five, that, in my opinion, would be a high estimate. Is that a reason why we should continue this extraordinary apparatus of State buying? When you are in business you have to buy your raw materials—everyone has to buy his materials—and provide means of financing the operation. Is it really right to provide that the Lancashire cotton industry—which, after all, is one of the most prosperous industries in the country today—shall be mothered in this way? Because it may be proved that three or four, or five or six, at any rate a comparatively small number of firms, find difficulty—I do not say that any firm will find it impossible—in adapting themselves to the new circumstances, are we to maintain this paraphernalia of State organised buying?

Mr. Rhodes: I did not make any plea to the Minister on account of inability to finance on this occasion. I did in the Standing Committee, but not now. Now it is a matter of actually getting the cotton. I pointed out that those merchants who have had the opportunity to purchase cotton during the last two years have not done so. Who are the people from whom the firms are to buy their cotton when the Commission finish if it is not the merchants? And if the merchants are not doing their job, what hope is there for the trade? We shall be short of cotton.

Mr. Shepherd: Now the hon. Member is introducing another point, but I am willing to deal with it. We have been over the ground a number of times about the fact that stocks of a particular type of cotton in the hands of private merchants are not as satisfactory as we should like. But the hon. Gentleman must try to face this thing realistically. Were he a merchant, how would he like to start competing in the buying of certain growths of cotton against a Commission


capable of losing £25 million in one year and another £25 million the next year?
It is no use laying a complaint against the private merchant when he is in the position of having to face a large buying organisation which can afford to lose, and has indeed, lost, £25 million in two successive years. There may be merchants who can afford to enter into that sort of competitive buying, but I do not know any, and, therefore, I do not attach great importance to the fact that, in the existing circumstances, there may be difficulty in obtaining stocks of Sudan cotton from private merchants.
What the argument of the hon. Gentleman did prove and fortify is the case against this Amendment—

Mr. Rhodes: What Amendment?

Mr. Shepherd: The Amendment we have been discussing before this one—

The Deputy-Chairman: It is out of order to discuss any Amendment. We are now debating the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Shepherd: I will content myself by saying that it does not fortify the argument against the Bill. It is impossible for any hon. Member on this side of the Committee to expect a merchant to stock up when there is a large buyer, like the Raw Cotton Commission, able to lose £25 million a year. I hope that my right hon. Friend will in no way delay the application of this Measure, but that at the earliest possible moment he will start the machinery of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange, so that the merchants may be properly covered and have confidence in buying their stocks, and be enabled to give that service which Lancashire deserves.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is it not a fact that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) is putting to the Committee, in as delicate a way as possible, the doctrine of a return to Adam Smith, the laissez faire doctrine which Keynes buried in 1925, and which every intelligent person in this country—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. Any reference to Adam Smith is entirely remote from the Question before the Committee.

Mr. Rhodes: Will the hon. Member for Cheadle answer this question? Time and time again hon. Members opposite have put to the Opposition the argument that we have departed from what the Commission was originally intended to do. It was originally intended to ensure an even flow of cotton at an even price. We have been taunted about going back to a replacement price. The Commission has been working on a replacement price for many months now. If that is so, what happens to the hon. Gentleman's argument about competition, for there cannot be any?

Mr. Shepherd: I cannot go over the ground again—

Mr. Price: On a point of order, Sir Rhys. When you called me to order just now on a point which you said was outside the Question that we are discussing, I had not finished my intervention.

The Deputy-Chairman: As far as the intervention had gone, it was out of order. I think we have disposed of it now.

Mr. Shepherd: Perhaps I might be allowed to draw my remarks to a close. I know that hon. Members opposite are most anxious to get on. I listened to them for some weeks in Committee upstairs, and I know how desperately anxious they are to speed up the Bill.
I cannot understand the anxiety of hon. Members opposite about the supply of stocks. If one is a cotton merchant, one makes profits by supplying cotton, and profit is a very strong stimulus. If a cotton merchant does not supply cotton, he does not make any money. Surely one thing that we can agree upon is that cotton merchants want to make money. I am certain that, when the transition period has passed, the supply of cotton to the Lancashire mills will be satisfactory to all concerned. We have met far too many obstacles before we have reached them. I am sure that within six to eight months of the passing of the Bill and the setting up again of the Commission the fears of hon. Gentlemen opposite will have been proved to be groundless.

Mr. Blackburn: No one would expect me to follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd). If we carry one part of his argument to its


logical conclusion, he disagrees with his own Front Bench and is suggesting that we should not even honour the long-term contracts that we have at present, which the Government are prepared to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) seems to provoke the hon. Member for Cheadle. It is always after my hon. Friend has spoken that the hon. Member for Cheadle decides to intervene in these debates.
I wish to call attention to Clause 4(1), which says:
The Board and the Minister, if at any time they are satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so, may by order jointly provide for the winding up and dissolution of the Commission.…
The Opposition are not convinced that the Government will know when it is in the public interest to wind up the Commission. We are convinced that the Government do not know when it is in the interest of the cotton industry to take action. We are convinced in any case that if they had had the interests of the cotton industry at heart the Government would never have brought forward the Bill. We had evidence of this in the Government's handling of the Japanese Trade Agreement, but I will not go into that matter for fear that I shall be ruled out of order.
With regard to the public interest, and, more particularly, the interests of Lancashire and Cheshire, there are three problems which are closely bound up. I have never yet had a satisfactory answer about any of them. We have discussed them repeatedly in Committee, but we do not seem to be able to get a very satisfactory answer.
I am not quite certain yet whether the Government now consider that we have a balance of payments problem or not, or whether they consider that the whole question of the balance of payments and the dollar problem has been solved. I really do not know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer might say about this Bill and its possible effects, but it might have been very helpful if, in one of our debates, the Chancellor had told us about the possible effects of this Bill in relation to the problem of the balance of payments.
Secondly, there is the question of stocks. In spite of what the hon. Member for Cheadle said about stocks and the fears of the mills, I suggest to him and

to the Government that they should read what the trade union leaders have had to say about the stock position and their fear that the industry might break down because of a lack of stocks.
I want to come now to the third problem, the question of the Colonies and colonial development. On the Amendment to page 3, line 12, which we discussed earlier, the debate was restricted because the words "long-term contracts" were included, and, therefore, we were not able to mention certain of the Colonies, because the argument was used that there was no long-term agreement with those Colonies. To take, first, the British West Indies, which subjectwas ruled out of order in the earlier debate because it was said there was no long-term contract. If there is an agreement with the British West Indies extending over a number of years whereby the Raw Cotton Commission have been buying the crop before it is sown, to me that is the equivalent of a long-term agreement.
In any case, it is vitally important to the West Indies that we should continue to take their crop from Montserrat, St Nevis and Anguilla, because cotton is the main export and, second only to sugar, in the case of Antigua and to arrowroot in the case of St. Vincent. Whether it is a principal or a second crop, it is vitally important to us, and these islands are dependent upon the help which they can get from us in this country. The collapse of the industry would, therefore, mean that there would have to be further support from Her Majesty's Government in order to help them to balance their finances.
Let us make clear what has happened in the last three years, and what has been the effect which the half-and-half system of the Raw Cotton Commission and private buying has had on the import of Sea Island cotton from the British West Indies. I am, of course, referring to long staple, which is Sea Island cotton. In 1951, we imported 22,294 centals of100 lb. each; in 1952, it had gone down to 21,610 centals; but in 1953, it was down to 6,021. This is a very serious matter for the West Indies.

9.0 p.m.

I have here a report prepared by the advisory committee in England of the West Indian Sea Island Cotton Association. It was prepared to deal with the


question of Purchase Tax, but it is relevant to what I have to say. It says:
At the time these difficulties were not directly felt in the West Indies, since all cotton was purchased by the Raw Cotton Commission; and to assist the Islands each year the Raw Cotton Commission purchased the whole crop of each island in advance at remunerative prices, negotiated with the negotiating committee of the Association. Recently, however,—
and this is the point to which I want to call attention—
the action of the Government in allowing spinners to contract out of obtaining their supplies of raw cotton from the Raw Cotton Commission has changed the position. Growers no longer have a guaranteed market and there has been a sharp fall in prices offered by spinners.

If the West Indies loses its guaranteed market, the whole economy of certain of the West Indian Islands is upset.

We are also inquiring into the details of the position of Uganda. There has been a phenomenal drop in the import into this country of Uganda cotton, from 466,447 centals in 1951 down to 201,371 centals in 1953. In monetary value, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said, the drop has been from £10,156,000 in 1951, down to £2,834,000 in 1953.

What has happened? During 1953, the import of cotton from Uganda by Japan went up by about 50 per cent. in one year. We have the position that sterling cotton is not coming to us from Uganda—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member's argument is getting a little far from the Question before the Committee.

Mr. Blackburn: Might I put it this way, Sir Rhys? I was bringing forward the economic facts of what is happening to the Uganda market. The fact I was referring to was that Japan was buying sterling cotton.

The Deputy-Chairman: We are discussing the Clause dealing with the dissolution of the Raw Cotton Commission.

Mr. Blackburn: Yes, Sir Rhys, but only when
it is in the public interest to do so.
My argument is designed to show that the Government do not appreciate that it is not in the public interest to do so.

However, rather than cause you further anxiety, and having made the point which I had in mind, I will leave my comments there, because I know there are other hon. Members who would like to make a contribution to the debate.

Mr. Amory: I wish to make only one or two very brief observations in reply to points that have been made, and I will not take up the time of the Committee in explaining any further why we believe it will be good to wind up the Commission, because that matter has already been very fully discussed.

Mr. Blackburn: The Government have never given the reason.

Mr. Amory: We have mentioned many times that, having announced our object to be the winding up of the Commission, it would be thoroughly bad to have continuing doubt and uncertainty. Therefore we announced that it was our view that it would be in the public interest that the Commission should be wound up as soon as practicable after 31st August next. The order will come forward in good time, and there will be plenty of opportunity for us to debate that subject further.
The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) took me to task because he said that we had made it clear that the Raw Cotton Commission would take care of the requirements of contractors in until the 1954 crop becomes available. That is so. We have said that, and the Raw Cotton Commission has made that very clear.
But the right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that that was difficult to reconcile with the answer which I gave in the House on 16th February, when I said:
The Raw Cotton Commission…are free to buy Sudanese cotton as they think fit, and my noble Friend is not prepared to advise them on the exercise of their commercial judgment."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1954; Vol. 523, c. 199.]
Surely, as the Raw Cotton Commission has said that they are going to cover these requirements, it would be quite superfluous to advise them how they should do so, and what quantities of Sudan cotton they require to buy to make good that assurance.
The hon. and gallant Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) pressed


me again about the financial aspects of stocks for the smaller spinners, a matter which I thought we had discussed fairly fully in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) referred to that, and pointed out that it is a normal requirement for a concern in industry to be responsible for providing its own stocks. I do not think it is fair to expect the responsibility for that in respect of one industry, however important it may be, to fall on public funds.
I would point out that a firm requiring supplies of cotton has two alternatives. It can either buy them in advance and finance them itself, or it can buy spot. I am quite certain that the merchants in the Liverpool Cotton Association will be prepared to provide whatever stocks are required. Naturally, spinners must be prepared to pay the reasonable cost of providing that surplus, but, if spinners will only make their requirements clear in advance, I am quite certain that the merchants will provide the stocks, because, after all, that is how they earn their living.
The hon. and gallant Member also asked what would happen if, unfortunately, it became necessary to impose restrictions on the import of dollar cotton. I can only repeat what we said earlier, which was that if, unfortunately, that became necessary, and if the restrictions which had to be imposed were only moderate in extent, we believed it could be done within the framework of the Liverpool cotton market, and individual rationing through the entitlement system appears to us to point a way in which that could be done. If the restrictions had to be much more severe, then that would be a matter on which nation-wide special measures would have to be taken, because the problem goes much wider than the provision of raw cotton.
Then we come to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), who is concerned, as he made clear this evening

Mr. Rhodes: Why this discrimination? Why not "gallant" as well?

Mr. Amory: I know of no one who has a better claim to that title if he would like to assume it.
The hon. Gentleman raised the aspect, not of finance, but of supplies. I know that he is genuinely concerned about

supplies, particularly of the Sudan and colonial types. Again, I would remind him of the assurance given by the Raw Cotton Commission that they are going to take care of the requirements of the contracting-in spinners for all types of cotton which they may require this season.
After that, in spite of having listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, I cannot see why spinners are going to find it any more difficult to obtain supplies of Sudan and colonial cotton than did the Raw Cotton Commission in the past. After all, the Raw Cotton Commission has never had long-term contracts for the provision of Sudan cotton. I am quite certain that, again, merchants will be only too glad to provide the service involved in the supply of these types of cotton if only spinners will make their requirements known.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) raised some questions about the West Indies and Uganda. As to the West Indies, I only want to say that up to 1951–52 the Raw Cotton Commission did buy bulk supplies from the West Indies—

Mr. H. Wilson: If I might interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, he has just said quite categorically that the Raw Cotton Commission has never had long-term arrangements for buying from the Sudan. How then does he explain the statement in the Cotton Commission's annual report—which has already been quoted once this afternoon—stating:
As mentioned earlier the Commission, in the autumn of 1951, decided to ensure Lancashire's future requirements of long staple cotton from the Sudan, and a bulk contract was negotiated…

Mr. Amory: It was annual, but bulk purchase is not the same as long term, and that is the difference. This, as Iunderstand it, is a perfectly clear case of a bulk purchase. Another bulk purchase may have been made the next year, but it is absolutely different from a long-term contract.

Mr. Wilson: But surely the right hon. Gentleman—

The Deputy-Chairman: Thequestion whether it is long-term contract or not is not relevant. It was relevant to the Amendment we were discussing before, because that phrase was included, but it is not relevant now.

Mr. Wilson: With respect, in the succession of Rulings duringthe debate on the Amendment it was ruled that we could debate only the areas which were subjects of long-term contracts. Then the Government Front Bench took it upon themselves to define "long-term contracts"in a particular way, and we were then told it was appropriate to refer to it.

The Deputy-Chairman: I raised the point about long-term contracts because the phrase was in the Amendment, but when we come to the Question "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," that question does not arise.

Mr. Wilson: With respect, when my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) and others wanted to refer to the Sudan—

The Deputy-Chairman: It was not in order then to discuss the Sudan. I am pointing out that in a discussion of the Question "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," it is in order, because it does not matter whether it is long-term or not.

Mr. Wilson: In that case, Sir Rhys, I find it difficult to understand why you pulled me up before.

The Deputy-Chairman: Because the Amendment referred to long-term con-

tracts. On the Question "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," the public interest is involved, and it does not matter whether it is a long-term or yearly contract. They are both included.

Mr. Amory: I was trying to deal with the point which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde raised about the West Indies. Up to 1951–52 there was bulk purchase, again, of West Indian long staple cotton. Since 1951–52 there has not been. But I am advised that the West Indies were offered a long-term contract and preferred not to have one. Much the same—not quite but nearly—applies to Uganda. Up to and including 1951–52 there was bulk purchase, but I understand, again, that Uganda prefers free buying to a long-term or bulk contract.
I shall not deal with the broad objects of this Clause, because we have really debated them at very considerable length, not only on Second Reading but in Committee, and I will not again deploy the arguments which we advanced on that occasion.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 257: Noes, 242.

Division No. 37.]
AYES
[9.15 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bullard, D. G.
Erroll, F. J.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fell, A.


Alport, C. J. M.
Burden, F. F. A.
Finlay, Graeme


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fisher, Nigel


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Arbuthnot, John
Campbell, Sir David
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Carr, Robert
Ford, Mrs. Patricia


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Cary, Sir Robert
Fort, R.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Channon, H.
Foster, John


Baldwin, A. E.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Banks, Col. C.
Cole, Norman
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Barber, Anthony
Colegate, W. A.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Barlow, Sir John
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Baxter, A. B.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Glover, D.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Godber, J. B.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Crouch, R. F.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Birch, Nigel
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Gough, C. F. H.


Bishop, F. P.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Gower, H. R.


Black, C. W.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Graham, Sir Fergus


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Bowen, E. R.
Deedes, W. F.
Grimond, J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Grimston, Hon. John (St Albans)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Braine, B. R.
Donner, Sir P. W.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Harden, J. R. E.


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Douglas Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Duthie, W. S.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hay, John




Heath, Edward
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Scholefield, Lt.-Col. W.


Higgs, J. M. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Scott, R. Donald


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Shepherd, William


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marples, A. E.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maude, Angus
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Hollis, M. C.
Maudling, R.
Snadden, W. McN.


Holt, A. F.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Soames, Capt. C.


Hope, Lord John
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Mellor, Sir John
Speir, R. M.


Horobin, I. M.
Molson, A. H. E.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Moore, Sir Thomas
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Stevens, G. P.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Storey, S.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Neave, Airey
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Nicholls, Harmer
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hurd, A. R.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Studholme, H. G.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Summers, G. S.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Iremonger, T. L.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Teeling, W.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Oakshott, H. D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Jennings, Sir Roland
Odey, G. W.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Kerr, H. W.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Leather, E. H. C.
Osborne, C.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Page, R. G.
Turton, R. H.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lindsay, Martin
Perkins, Sir Robert
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Vosper, D. F.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Wade, D. W.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pilkington, Capt, R. A.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Wall, P. H. B.


Longden, Gilbert
Powell, J. Enoch
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Raikes, Sir Victor
Watkinson, H. A.


McCallum, Major D.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wellwood, W.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Redmayne, M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


McKibbin, A. J.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Renton, D. L. M.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ridsdale, J. E.
Wills, G.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Robson-Brown, W.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)



MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Russell, R. S.
Sir Cedric Drewe and Mr. Kaberry.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Burke, W. A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Adams, Richard
Burton, Miss F. E.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Allen, Scholefield (Crews)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Callaghan, L. J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Carmichael, J.
Fernyhough, E.


Awbery, Stan
Cattle, Mrs. B. A.
Fienburgh, W.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Champion, A. J.
Finch, H. J.


Balfour, A.
Chapman, W. D.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Clunie, J.
Follick, M.


Bartley, P.
Coldrick, W.
Foot, M. M.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Collick, P. H.
Forman, J. C.


Bence, C. R.
Cove, W. G.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bonn, Hon. Wedgwood
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Benson, G.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Gibson, C. W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Gooch, E. G.


Blackburn, F.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Blenkinsop, A.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Blyton, W. R.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Grey, C. F.


Bowden, H. W.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Bowles, F. G.
Deer, G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Delargy, H. J.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Brockway, A. F.
Dodds, N. N.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Donnelly, D. L.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hamilton, W. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hannan, W.


Brawn, Thomas (Inoe)
Edelman, M.
Hargreaves, A.







Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Moody, A. S.
Snow, J. W.


Hastings, S.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hayman, F. H.
Morley, R.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Sparks, J. A.


Herbison, Miss M.
Mort, D. L.
Steele, T.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Moyle, A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hobson, C. R.
Mulley, F. W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Holman, P.
Murray, J. D.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Holmes, Horace
Nally, W.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Houghton, Douglas
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hoy, J. H.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Swingler, S. T.


Hubbard, T. F.
O'Brien, T.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Oldfield, W. H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oswald, T.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Padley, W. E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paget, R. T.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Janner, B.
Palmer, A, M. F.
Thornton, E.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pannell, Charles
Timmons, J.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Pargiter, G. A.
Tomney, F.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Parker, J.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pearson, A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Usborne, H. C.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Popplewell, E.
Viant, S. P.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Porter, G.
Wallace, H. W.


Keenan, W.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Warbey, W. N.


Kenyon, C.
Proctor, W. T.
Watkins, T. E.


Key, Rt. Han. C. W.
Pryde, D. J.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


King, Dr. H. M.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Rankin, John
Wells, William (Walsall)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Reeves, J.
West, D. G.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Lewis, Arthur
Reid, William (Camlachie)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Lindgren, G. S.
Rhodes, H.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Richards, R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Logan, D. G.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wigg, George


MacColl, J. E.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


McGhee, H. G.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wilkins, W. A.


McGovern, J.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Willey, F. T.


McInnes, J.
Ross, William
Williams, David (Neath)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


McLeavy, F.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Short, E. W.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Manuel, A. C.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mason, Roy
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wyatt, W. L.


Mayhew, C. P.
Skeffington, A. M.
Yates, V. F.


Mellish, R. J.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)



Messer, Sir F.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mitchison, G. R.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Mr. Royle and Mr. Arthur Allen.


Monslow, W.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee, and on recommittal), considered.

Clause 1.—(FUNCTIONS OF RAW COTTON COMMISSION.)

Mr. H. Wilson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, to leave out subsection (5).
I hope to keep the discussion on the Amendment very narrow. What subsection (5) does is to confer retroactive effect on the whole of the Clause. I do not propose to discuss in detail those subsections to which subsection (5) gives retrospective effect. I want to deal with the narrow point of retrospection, because the whole House will feel that wherever legislation has retrospective effect, it should be brought to the attention of the House and the House should be thoroughly satisfied about it.
In the Standing Committee, there was discussion on a similar Amendment to delete subsection (5), and on that occasion the debate was restricted so far as we were concerned to one point only, namely, to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether this meant that the Board of Trade had been acting illegally in using the 1947 Act for the purpose of permitting contracting-out, because there had been doubt about it in our debate last July. We adjourned the debate in Committee to get the attendance of a Law Officer of the Crown, who did not turn up, and after all that the Government stood firm to their view that there had been no illegality in the use of the 1947 Act for the purpose of introducing the system of contracting-out.
I do not want to pursue the point that we debated in Committee, but I wish to put one simple narrow question to the President, to which I hope he gives a clear answer. It is my suspicion that here again, possibly for the third time during the passage of the Bill, the President has been acting illegally. We spent some hours this afternoon debating Amendments that had been introduced to validate the action of the Commission, and I have referred also to problems about the winding up of the statistics department.
What is the purpose of subsection (5)? It is a retrospective subsection to say that the whole of the Clause
shall be deemed to have come into operation
on 1st September last. Why has the President put this in the Bill? Either it has meaning or it has not. If it has no meaning, obviously the President will accept our Amendment and will have the subsection deleted. If it has meaning, we must ask what it is.
It would appear to us on this side that if the President is by this retrospective subsection validating the actions of the Commission in that they have been defaulting on their obligations, which are referred in the previous four subsections, the Commission have once again been acting illegally. That is the only possible interpretation. I think it would be in order to do so, but I have no desire to discuss what those obligations are which are affected by subsection (5). I confine myself to the narrow point of why retrospection is involved.
Surely, this is the position. If not, I hope that the President will tell us. Under the original Act, the Commission were given a whole range of obligations. A whole range of things that they had to do is set out in summary form in subsections (1) to (4). Then, along comes the President, who makes all these alterations in the Commission's behaviour, who tells them to do all sorts of things, like contracting-out. He comes along with the Bill, and the Bill as a whole says that the Commission do not have to fulfil these obligations any more. All up to this point is quite understandable.

9.30 p.m.

Then we find that subsection (5) states not only that the Commission need not fulfil their obligations any more, but that

they do not have to fulfil those obligations right back to last September. What does that mean? It can only mean, if this subsection has any validity at all, that the Raw Cotton Commission defaulted on the obligations referred to in subsection (1) since last September. If that is so, since this Bill is not yet law and the only law that governs the Raw Cotton Commission's behaviour is the 1947 Act, then the Commission have been defaulting on the obligations of the 1947 Act and was promised by the President that if it did default the Government would validate it with another retrospective Measure, namely, the present Bill.

In submitting that the Commission have operated illegally, I would add that what we fear is that what has been happening here is far worse than the sort of thing we were talking about this afternoon. We all understand what happened then. The Raw Cotton Commission slipped up. There was a lot of argument today about the relations between the President of the Board of Trade and the Commission. The President then introduced legislation to give restrospective validity to the Commission's action, which was ultra vires and which involved the paying out of compensation.

I do not want to say anything about that, because we have debated it. But what I fear is that under this subsection something much more serious has been at work. In fact, the Commission have been defaulting on their obligations as set out in the 1947 Act, not behind the back of the President of the Board of Trade but at his behest. He cannot say that he did not know about it, because this illegal behaviour has been committed ever since the 1st September so that the President himself must have been responsible for telling the Commission to break the law in that way. That is the only meaning I can read into the necessity for this subsection.

If the President will tell us that this subsection is not really necessary, that the Raw Cotton Commission have not yet started defaulting on their obligations, and will only do so when empowered by this Bill becoming law, then we shall be happy and he will be happy to accept this Amendment. If that is not the position and this is required because the Commission have been defaulting on their obligations, I


believe that a serious state of affairs will be revealed because it will have been done at his behest.

May I ask the President to deal specifically with this point? I have not attempted to go into the question of what those obligations are, but will he tell us whether at this time the Raw Cotton Commission are or are not defaulting on the obligations which were laid upon them by the 1947 Act? If he tells us that they have not defaulted, then we want to know why he is taking this retrospective action. If he tells us they have defaulted, then it will be a grave statement of which the House will have to take notice.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Clause 1, as the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) quite accurately points out, removes a number of the obligations which were imposed on the Commission, and very properly imposed, when they were operating as a monopoly. But in the course of time the Commission have ceased to be a monopoly, not all at once but over a period of time.
When it reported, the first Hopkins Committee brought the Raw Cotton Commission to an end as a monopoly because that committee, which represented all sections of the industry, recommended that those who wished to contract out should be allowed to do so, and about one-third of them did. The second Hopkins Committee examined this again and recommended, broadly, speaking, the same procedure. On the second contracting out more than 50 per cent. of the trade did so and it is clear that in those circumstances there was no longer a monopoly.
It is possible under the Act to issue licences to those contractors out so that they can purchase on private account, but when we are dealing with a Bill which, in effect, ends the monopoly Obligations—because this is what it does in the period between now and the ending of the Commission—it is wise to take account of the facts of the situation. They are not facts of politics, but really facts of nature.
On 1st September the buying season starts. That is why that date was chosen, so that spinners could make up their minds whether they would buy from the

Cotton Commission or not. So that on 1st September, 1953, roughly 50 per cent. of the trade decided that they would buy outside. Therefore, when we came to the drafting of the Bill, we took account of these facts of nature and said that as from that date the obligations of the Cotton Commission would no longer rest upon them.
I think that was the wise and sensible thing to do. Nothing illegal has taken place because it is legitimate under the terms of the original Act. The right hon. Gentleman himself said in an earlier debate that he thought we were straining the spirit of the law. I think this subsection takes cognisance of that point of view. At any rate, it takes account of the fact that as from 1st September, 1953, so much of the trade was buying on private account that one could not say that from that time monopoly obligations should be placed on the Commission. In those circumstances, I hope the House will retain the subsection.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question, because it is absolutely fundamental to this Amendment? Is it a fact, or is it not, that since 1st September the Raw Cotton Commission have not been carrying out the obligations which, however contrary to the facts of nature or whatever the right hon. Gentleman calls them, are still the law? Have they been honouring fully all the obligations which are the law of the land as set out in the 1947 Act?

Mr. Thorneycroft: They have been honouring to the full their obligations under the Act, and we have been meticulously careful to see that all the various procedures laid down under the original Act have been complied with.

Mr. Irvine: I do not want to follow the point raised by my right hon. Friend, but I cannot feel satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman has given a satisfactory reply. This Clause is important in two respects. First, it brings forward once again the risk of retrospective legislation. It is agreed on all sides that it is undesirable that there should be retrospective legislation and that it is derogatory to the rule of law that what is believed and understood at any given time to be the law should afterwards be decided by Parliament not to have been the law. It is a


principle on which all parties can agree and it is the duty of hon. Members to draw attention to contraventions of the principle when they occur.
The second and more important detailed consideration is that an arbitrary date has been inserted in the Bill, namely, 1st September, 1953. When we inquire why that date is selected we are told that the reason is that 1st September marks the beginning of the cotton year. The 1953 1st September marks the beginning of the period during which the scale of private importation of cotton reached the point of "over-straining the Act." The anxiety that we have felt during the consideration of this Bill is that when the Government talk about "over-straining the Act" what they mean, in fact, is breaking the law. That is what we think is the correct interpretation.
Contracting out in the year beginning 1st September, 1953, was carried out on a scale substantially over 50 per cent., and it is obviously something quite different in kind and degree from anything contemplated under the extension Sections in the original Act. But where very considerable anxiety still exists is on what the position was in the previous year, the cotton year which began on 1st September, 1952.
The President said this evening, as he said earlier upstairs with great confidence and certainty, that nothing illegal had occurred and, of course, it would be wasting the time of the House to start hares on a matter of that kind. If one had felt a real conviction that nothing illegal had been happening it would be rather a waste of time to pursue the point, but there are still some of us who are doubtful about it. We feel doubtful particularly about the events of that earlier cotton year when contracting out was not at 50 per cent. but about 30 per cent., which is not dealt with by the subsection which we have now under consideration.
It is said that a great deal of what was going on during that year was probably illegal, although there have been no prosecutions. One wonders how closely was fulfilled during that year the requirement of the principal Act that written permission should be received from the Raw Cotton Commission before private importation, and that licences

should be provided by the Board of Trade to cover every importation transaction.
What assurance have the Government been able to give on this point? The only assurance that they have given so far is that which was offered by the Minister of State, Board of Trade, to the Standing Committee when he said:
To the best of my knowledge, an individual licence was given"—
That was for the cotton year beginning 1st September, 1952—
to each individual private operator but not, so far as I am aware, a separate licence for each individual transaction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Standing Committee A, 15th December, 1953; c. 136.]
That is the confession of the Minister as to what has occurred.
We had the greatest difficulty in obtaining any information at all. When we pressed the matter that was the information that we received. He felt able to say that every individual operator had been the recipient of a licence, but he was quite unable to say that every single transaction had been made under a licence. I doubt very much whether that account of the matter, which comes from the Minister himself, at all meets the requirements of the principal Act. The Act does not say that private importations will be permitted when a licence is given to an operator. Not at all. If that had been the wording of the principal Act there would have been some ground for the Government coming forward now and saying that nothing illegal had occurred.

9.45 p.m.

Let us look at what the principal Act says in this connection. Section 2 (1, d) of the principal Act provides that the overriding prohibition against private importation of cotton shall not apply "to a person acting in relation to the importation in question under the authority of a licence granted by the Board of Trade.…"

That clearly contemplates a licence in respect of every importation. I take the view, and expect it to be widely shared, that it simply did not meet the statutory requirement of the principal Act of 1947 to give an overall licence to the importer.

That is obviously what has occurred, on the confession of the Minister of State, Board of Trade. The Government treated the Section with a laxity of which, if it had occurred on this side


of the House, they would have been severely critical. They have given the operator, the importer, the merchant a wide overall licence or discretion and such behaviour was not contemplated by the principal Act, which specifically brought in the words
in relation to the importation in question.

I think there is point of substance there. It would have been very wrong if this consideration of the Bill had gone through without that point being brought forward. It is on record now and I should not like it to be thought that the suave assurance of the President that nothing illegal had occurred carried as much weight as apparently he thought it did.

I say this about the subsection we seek to remove. It is objectionable in principle, because, once again, it introduces the objectionable principle of retrospective legislation. I say that it is purporting to make legal acts which have been carried out since 1st September, 1953, and which, if executed before that time, were illegal. To the extent to which it is an indemnity Clause it is not effective because it does not go far enough as it fails to cover the manifest illegality which occurred in the cotton year commencing 1st September, 1952.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 241.

Division No. 38.]
AYES
[9.46 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
David, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hollis, M. C.


Alport, C. J. M.
Deedes, W. F.
Holt, A. F.


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hope, Lord John


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Arbuthnot, John
Donner, Sir P. W.
Horobin, I. M.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Douglas Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Drayson, G. B.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Baldwin, A. E.
Drewe, Sir C.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Banks, Col. C.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Barber, Anthony
Duthie, W. S.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.


Barlow, Sir John
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)


Baxter, A. B.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Erroll, F. J.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. N.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fell, A.
Iremonger, T. L.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Finlay, Graeme
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fisher, Nigel
Jennings, Sir Roland


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Birch, Nigel
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Bishop, F. P.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Kerr, H. W.


Black, C. W.
Fort, R.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Boothby, Sir R. J. G.
Foster, John
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Bowen, E. R.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Leather, E. H. C.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Braine, B. R.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Lindsay, Martin


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Braithwaite, Sir Gurney
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Glover, D.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Godber, J. B.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Longden, Gilbert


Bullard, D. G.
Gough, C. F. H.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gower, H. R.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Burden, F. F. A.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Gridley, Sir Arnold
McCallum, Major D.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Grimond, J.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Campbell, Sir David
Grimston, Hon. John (SI. Albans)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Carr, Robert
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McKibbin, A. J.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Channon, H.
Harden, J. R. E.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hare, Hon. J. A.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Cole, Norman
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Colegate, W. A.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hay, John
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Heath, Edward
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Higgs, J. M. C.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Marples, A. E.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Maude, Angus




Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Mellor, Sir John
Rayner, Brig. R.
Teeling, W.


Molson, A. H. E.
Redmayne, M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Moore, Sir Thomas
Renton, D. L. M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Roberta, Peter (Heeley)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Neave, Airey
Robertson, sir David
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Nicholls, Harmer
Robson-Brown, W.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Touche, Sir Gordon


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Russell, R. S.
Turton, R. H.


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Nugent, G. R. H.
Schofield, Lt.-Cot. W.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Oakshott, H. D.
Scott, R. Donald
Vosper, D. F.


Odey, G. W.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wade, D. W.


O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Shepherd, William
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wall, P. H. B.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Snadden, W. McN.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Osborne, C.
Soames, Capt. C.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Page, R. G.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Watkinson, H. A.


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Speir, R. M.
Wellwood, W.


Perkins, Sir Robert
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Stevens, G. P.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wills, G.


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Storey, S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)



Powell, J. Enoch
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Summers, G. S.
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Kaberry.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Dodds, N. N.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Donnelly, D. L.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Janner, B.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Edelman, M.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Balfour, A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Bartley, P.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Fienburgh, W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Bence, C. R.
Finch, H. J.
Keenan, W.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Kenyon, C.


Benson, G.
Follick, M.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Foot, M. M.
King, Dr. H. M.


Blackburn, F.
Forman, J, C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Blenkinsop, A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Blyton, W. R.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lewis, Arthur


Bowden, H. W.
Gibson, C. W.
Lindgren, G. S.


Bowles, F. G.
Gooch, E. G.
Logan, D. G.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacColl, J. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
McGhee, H. G.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McGovern, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Grey, C. F.
McInnes, J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McLeavy, F.


Burke, W. A.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Callaghan, L. J.
Hamilton, W. W.
Manuel, A. C.


Carmichael, J.
Hannan, W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hargreaves, A.
Mason, Roy


Champion, A. J.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mayhew, C. P.


Chapman, W. D.
Hastings, S.
Mellish, R. J.


Clunie, J.
Hayman, F. H.
Messer, Sir F.


Coldrick, W.
Healey, Denis (Leeds S.E.)
Mitchison, G. R.


Collick, P. H.
Herbison, Miss M.
Monslow, W.


Cove, W. G.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Moody, A. S.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hobson, C. R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Holman, P.
Morley, R.


Grossman, R. H. S.
Holmes, Horace
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Houghton, Douglas
Mort, D. L.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hoy, J. H.
Moyle, A.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hubbard, T. F.
Mulley, F. W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Murray, J. D.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Nally, W.


Deer, G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.







O'Brien, T.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Timmons, J.


Oldfield, W. H.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon Sir Hartley
Turner-Samuels, M.


Oliver, G. H.
Short, E. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Oswald, T.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Usborne, H. C.


Padley, W. E.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Viant, S. P.


Paget, R. T.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Warbey, W. N.


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Watkins, T. E.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Skeffington, A. M.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Weitzman, D.


Pannell, Charles
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Pargiter, G. A.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Parker, J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
West, D. G.


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Snow, J. W.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Popplewell, E.
Sorensen, R. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Porter, G.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Sparks, J. A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Steele, T.
Wigg, George


Proctor, W. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Pryde, D. J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Willey, F. T.


Rankin, John
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Williams, David (Neath)


Reeves, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Swingler, S. T.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Richards, R.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wyatt, W. L.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Yates, V. F.


Ross, William
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)



Royle, C.
Thornton, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wallace.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 3.—(COMPENSATION TO OFFICERS, AGENTS AND SERVANTS OF COMMISSION.)

Mrs. Braddock: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no such approval shall be given to any scheme or arrangement under this part of this Act which provides that officers, agents or servants of the Commission shall be compensated for loss of employment at rates or on a basis of calculation which discriminates between those whose remuneration is paid or calculated weekly and those whose remuneration is paid or calculated monthly, quarterly, or annually.
In the Standing Committee, the President promised that he would, so far as he could, alter the terms of compensation in order to ensure that those in respect of weekly wage earners were similar to those for persons earning salaries. When the Amendment was put on the Order Paper we had not had the information that the President had made an alteration. That information was given yesterday in reply to a sponsored Question from an hon. Member opposite.
I move the Amendment to give the President an opportunity to explain the altered provisions for compensation, so that we may be certain that they fulfil the promises made in the Standing Committee.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I beg to second the Amendment.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) put down this Amendment, which gives me the opportunity of saying that I have given full consideration to the discussion which we had on this subject in the Standing Committee. Though the compensation scheme, as such, is not before us, but only the Clause which gives power for the Commission to draw up and submit a scheme, we have, I think properly, had some discussion about it.
Amongst the points which have been raised has been the one that, in calculating the compensation, arrangements might be made to treat the members of the staff who are paid weekly on the same basis as those who are paid monthly. I am not going to argue the philosophical merits of that suggestion. No doubt, there are some cases in which one should, and others in which one should not, but, on looking into the matter, I find that the total cost to public funds is not very large. I think the cost of the alteration is about £10,000—not a large amount. It does seem right that we should have asked the Commission to look at it again, and I would point out that it is the Commission which has to submit a scheme.
They have submitted a new scheme in the terms which I announced in answer


to a Question yesterday by one of my hon. Friends. Without going into the precise terms, I think it will suffice for me to inform the House that the new arrangements, for the gratuities paid and so forth, place the weekly wage earners on exactly the same terms in regard to compensation as those who are paid monthly or by reference to any other period.

Mr. H. Wilson: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, for reasons which are now obvious, we do not intend to press the Amendment to a Division, and in view of the rapidly diminishing size of the Government's majority in previous Divisions this evening, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will, by the assurance which I have just given him, feel greatly relieved of the anxiety which he must have been feeling.
I wish to say, on behalf of the Opposition, how much we welcome this very narrow and small part of what otherwise is a very bad Bill, the President's change of heart and the spirit in which he has approached the suggestions which we put to him. I think it would be right to say, before congratulating him, that this has been a good day for my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), who has played a leading part in the earlier debate this afternoon—at least, in giving rise to it—while the Amendment which we are now debating, and the President's assurance on it, represent the answer to the arguments which the hon. Lady and other Members of Standing Committee A deployed for some hours during our deliberations just after Christmas.
At that time, we felt that the Government's proposal to add this discrimination between monthly and weekly-paid wage earners was indefensible and inequitable. We could have saved some hours if the Government had seen the force of our arguments a little more quickly, but we were glad when the President said that he would think again about them.
His speech this evening and his answer to a Question yesterday by the hon. Member for Garston (Sir V. Raikes) make clear that he has fulfilled what we asked him to do in this respect as fully as we could wish. My hon. Friends will also feel some satisfaction at the right hon. Gentleman's agreement to count the

periods of service not in annual but in six-monthly periods. We should have liked him to have gone further, and I am sorry he has not done so, but for what he has done we express our appreciation.
On the main point that we put to him about monthly and weekly wage earners we feel we have achieved a concrete result for the length of time that was spent by hon. Members in the Standing Committee. This represents a partial retreat by the Government in their class warfare, on one narrow front. We are only too happy to welcome that small sign of grace. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall not take this argument much further on this Amendment, and that we shall not press the Amendment to a Division.

Mrs. Braddock: I thank the President of the Board of Trade for the statement that he has made. I think he will agree that the arguments put up by the Opposition in Committee have convinced him that the case is very strong indeed, or else he would not be taking the responsibility of recommending to the Commission that these alterations be made. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow; and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

Orders of the Day — PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE (EXCHEQUER EQUALISATION GRANTS)

10.7 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move,
That, in the case of a Bill (whether Public or Private) containing any provision which would or might operate to increase Exchequer Equalisation Grants in England or Wales, the Standing Orders and practice of this House relating to provisions authorising charges upon the public revenue shall not be deemed to apply to that provision by reason only of the consequential increase in Exchequer Equalisation Grants in Scotland under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954. [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
The need for this Motion arises from the fact that the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, has become law during the last few days. The effect of that is that equalisation grants payable to Scottish local


authorities are no longer fixed on the principles of the Local Government Act, 1948, but on the basis of the Goschen formula, that is to say, eleven-eightieths of similar expenditure in England and Wales. The consequence is that a proposal which can affect the total equalisation grants in England and Wales has the effect of increasing those grants in Scotland.
As the consequence of that, Money Resolutions, and indeed Bills, now before this House do not technically comply with the Standing Orders, inasmuch as authority is not provided for the consequential expenditure in Scotland. The Motion has the effect of correcting this position. It is drafted to cover Resolutions during the whole of this Session, as the comparable one which followed the passing of the Local Government Act, 1948, also did. The intention is that new Money Resolutions shall be drafted to comply with the new situation arising from the passing of the Scottish Act, and expenses Clauses of Bills before the House which are at a stage where this can be done will be amended consequently.
The motion is none the less drafted in this general form to cover Bills which are at too late a stage for those steps to be taken, and also to cover late-presented Private Bills. It covers the whole of the Session and it appears probable that in due course it will be necessary to make some minor alterations to Standing Orders.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is this Motion to be discussed by the Scottish Standing Committee?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If I may, by leave of the House, reply to that question, this Motion is a proposal governing the procedure of the House, and, therefore, it has to be discussed in this House.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS)

Mr. Hamilton added to the Select Committee.—[Sir C. Drewe.]

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRANSPORT (FUEL OIL TAX)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Studholme.]

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: It would be out of order for me, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, to urge that legislation should be introduced to deal with the fuel oil position. I propose, therefore, to confine myself tonight to the task of placing before the Treasury a picture of the difficulties at present confronting the passenger transport industry in the hope that when the position is reviewed these difficulties, along with other matters and facts, will be taken into account.
The present position of road transport has been the subject of representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the Transport and General Workers' Union, the Trades Union Congress and the four associations representing the employers' side of the road passenger transport industry. I trust, therefore, that the Chancellor, in taking into consideration the strong representations which have been made, will pay special attention to those made by the Trades Union Congress, whose representations deal with the wider aspect of the problems of the travelling public. I suggest that no body is more capable than the T.U.C. of advising upon the impact which ever-increasing bus fares must have upon industrial wage claims.
What are the facts about the fuel oil position? I am sure that the Financial Secretary will not mind my referring to the incidence of taxation in order that we may get a complete picture of the position.

Mr. Speaker: This is going to be a very awkward subject for the hon. Member to discuss on the Adjournment, because the rate of fuel oil taxation is fixed by successive Finance Bills, and the rules on matters raised on the Adjournment which involve legislation appear to me to make it a very narrow field in which the hon. Member has to operate.

Mr. McLeavy: I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether it might be possible to


deal with the development and growth of the tax in order to get the background of the argument which I should like to submit to the Treasury on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that an historical account of the matter would be out of order so long as the hon. Member is not suggesting, as a result of his review, that the tax should be altered in the forthcoming Budget, or at any other time.

Mr. McLeavy: Within those limitations, Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the background of the argument in order that we might examine for a short while the exceedingly difficult position of the transport industry.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): As I understand your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, it follows that, however convincing the hon. Gentleman's suggestions may be, any arguments on my part on the subject of the level of the fuel duty—which can only be altered by legislation—would be debarred to me, and therefore, no matter how interesting the historical background, I am not in a position to answer.

Mr. Speaker: That seems to be the root of the matter. The Adjournment should really be used to raise matters and complaints where an administrative remedy is available. Here, the only remedy to the hon. Gentleman's complaint is legislation, and it seems to me that if the Minister is debarred from reply, the hon. Member, equally, is debarred by the rules of order from raising the matter, unless he can make a speech somehow, without suggesting that the tax is too high and should be reduced.

Mr. McLeavy: I gathered from your previous Ruling that you would not object to a kind of historical review of taxation to provide a background to the position, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Financial Secretary's position. I should not expect from him any comment upon a purely factual statement of the development of fuel taxation, and if it will present the Financial Secretary with some difficulty I shall not pursue that point.
It may well be that the Financial Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the House are not fully aware of the duties and responsibilities of

the road passenger transport undertakings. The duty of an omnibus undertaking is to provide adequate services not only to the populated areas but to the rural districts. In that respect it is some what different from the ordinary industrial undertaking. The transport undertaking cannot choose to exploit the purely profitable lines, but in many cases must provide unremunerative countryside services and meet the loss from the better paying routes.
Owing to its various financial difficulties it is becoming increasingly difficult for the transport industry to provide that frequency of service which is convenient in the thickly populated areas. In the rural areas there is obviously a tendency for further restriction of services—for the same financial reason. I had hoped to give to the Financial Secretary and to the House some statistics relating to the mileage cost of running our municipal omnibus undertakings.
I will, however, content myself by saying that it is quite clear that many municipal undertakings are working under extremely difficult circumstances. Their financial resources are limited, and they have a responsibility to municipal authorities and to the inhabitants of their areas to provide adequate and reasonably fair services. Owing to their many financial difficulties most municipal undertakings have to make repeated applications for authority to increase their fares.
One of the most important factors in keeping down the cost of living is the maintenance of a reasonable level of fare charges. The travelling public should also be given reasonable facilities. These are problems which might well be pondered over by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues. Certain municipal transport undertakings are trying to do away with workmen's fares. If that development is carried into effect it will create dissatisfaction among the thousands of work people who have to travel day in and day out to their work. They will have to meet an increased expenditure which, in turn, will give rise to further claims for increases of wages. It is vitally important that we should endeavour to find a way by which fares can be kept down to a minimum.
I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary


appreciates the fact that the passenger transport industry has probably rendered as great a service as any other industry towards our economic and industrial development, and in providing facilities for the social life of the community. Yet, in terms of money, it has received nothing like the amounts which are being received by other industrial undertakings.
The position of the transport worker is being seriously affected because of the very limited financial resources of municipal transport undertakings. I have spent a lifetime in the passenger transport side of the industry, and I do not think that anybody can suggest that drivers or conductors are in receipt of wages which are commensurate to their responsibilities to the traveling public.
As a matter of fact, I would assert that their standard of wages and the conditions of employment are inferior to many of the industrial concerns in the country. We are asking these people not merely to work in less favourable conditions of employment and for wages which are lower, but we are asking them to sacrifice much of their social and home life because of the nature of their employment. Nearly half their life time is spent either on late shifts or special duty, on Sunday work or Saturday work and in working on Bank holidays when everyone else is going out with his family.
These are facts which the Treasury ought to take into consideration in considering the financial difficulties of this industry. I make this final point to the Treasury and to the Financial Secretary. It is that the importance of the passenger transport service to the communal and industrial life of this country entitles it to receive from the Treasury more sympathetic consideration than it has received in the past from the Treasury in respect of its financial difficulties.

10.27 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) has been sufficiently long in this House to know, and to know in advance, how unsatisfactory this sort of debate must be on the Adjournment.
I know, and the House knows, the subject which he really has in mind, and the

hon. Member knows perfectly well, and, indeed, Mr. Speaker has so ruled, that it is a subject on which I am debarred from presenting the case for the Government by the rules of order. Mr. Speaker did say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that on the Adjournment it was, on the whole, more appropriate to raise administrative matters. It is not for me to suggest to the hon. Member, who has had the good fortune to win a place in the Ballot, what subject he should select, but I think that I am entitled to protest that he should attempt to raise a subject which he knows perfectly well I am not in a position to deal with under the rules of order.
He then went on to discuss very interesting matters relating to the transport industry in general. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that these matters are not the responsibility either of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor or of myself. In so far as he raised matters in connection with the transport industry generally, had he really wanted a reply, he could have given notice to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. The hon. Member knows that my right hon. Friend would, in these circumstances, have been here to give him a full and courteous answer.
What the hon. Member has done has been to put down a subject for discussion which includes the word "taxation," although from his experience of the House, which is considerable, he knows perfectly well that neither he nor I can discuss that. It is certainly not my fault if this is inevitably an unsatisfactory debate, and one which anyone with any experience of the procedure of this House must have known in advance would be an unsatisfactory debate.
So far as the general affairs of the transport industry are concerned, I am quite certain that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation will give it all the consideration which it deserves. Equally, the hon. Member will not expect me to arrogate to myself the Departmental responsibility of my right hon. Friend and attempt to deal with the manifold, complex and difficult problems of the transport industry. Indeed, it would be most improper were I so to do. So we are left with the fact that what the hon. Member wishes to discuss is a matter which, under the Rules of the House, cannot be discussed, and that is the ques-


tion of taxation and the level of taxation imposed in successive Finance Bills. I do not propose to trespass on your forbearance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, by attempting, as the hon. Gentleman did, to discuss that subject in these circumstances.

Mr. McLeavy: Mr. McLeavy rose—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman has sufficiently abused the Rules of this House, and he should allow me to finish my speech.

Mr. McLeavy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think it is most improper, and I submit to you that it is entirely wrong, for the Minister to say that in the presence of Mr. Speaker I have abused the Rules of this House. Mr. Speaker did raise certain points with me, and I immediately conformed to the limitations which he imposed. I think it is disgraceful that the Minister should suggest that I have done anything which, in the view of Mr. Speaker, was improper.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What I have just said was that the hon. Gentleman attempted to do so and was stopped by Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Member for Bradford. East (Mr. McLeavy) knows very well that taxation cannot be raised on the Adjournment and even since I

have been in the Chair I heard him raising points for which the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary has no responsibility.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps I may conclude these thoroughly unsatisfactory proceedings by saying that on an appropriate occasion when, under the Rules of Order, I am free to do so, I shall be very glad to debate any question of taxation with the hon. Gentleman or, indeed, with any of his hon. Friends. The House knows perfectly well that appropriate occasions for that sort of discussion are in the course of the calendar, not very far off, and that these matters can then be properly, appropriately and conveniently discussed.
Until then, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, both your Ruling and the general practice of the House forbid me, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to deploy that argument. But I should not like the hon. Gentleman or people outside this House to think that because I cannot deploy it tonight there is not a perfectly valid argument, whichI very much hope will be submitted to the test of proper Parliamentary discussion on an appropriate Parliamentary occasion.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.